Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Raghuraj Singh v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 14756 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 4563 (15 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Judgement Reserved on28.2.2007)

(Judgement Delivered on 15.3.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14756 of 1987

Raghuraj Singh Versus State of U.P and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Initially proceedings for declaration and taking surplus land were initiated against the petitioner under U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 in the year 1976 by issuing notice under section 10(2) of the Act. The prescribed authority (Ceiling) Iglas, Aligarh decided the matter in favour of the petitioner through order dated 5.6.76, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Through the said order notice was discharged and it was held that the petitioner did not possess any surplus land. In the very first sentence of the said judgment, it is mentioned that the proceedings were initiated in pursuance of U.P Act No. 20 of 1976 through which Ceiling Act was amended with effect from 10.10.1975.

The prescribed authority had held that 12 Bigha land of plot No.38 which initially belonged to the petitioner was auctioned under Order of the court and sold in favour of Ram Charan and thereafter it was mutated in the revenue records in the name of Ram Charan through order of S.D.O dated 24.6.1969 i.e. before 24.1.1971. It was further held that in respect of the said land notice under Ceiling Act was issued to Bhagwati S/o Ram Charan hence it could not be deemed to be petitioner's land. In respect of plot No. 33 area 7 Bigha 15 Biswa it was held that it was sold on 3.8.1959 and the said sale deed was quite bonafide (at that time even the Ceiling Act of 1960 was not passed). In this manner the prescribed authority had held that the aforesaid land of 19 Bigha 15 Biswa was not to be treated land of petitioner. In the notice it had been shown that petitioner possessed 17 Bigha 18 biswa land as surplus land. Accordingly prescribed authority had held that petitioner had no surplus land. Against order dated 5.6.1976 no appeal was filed and the said order became final. After about 9 years fresh notice was issued to the petitioner under section 10(2) of the Act on 14.5.1985. Petitioner filed objection and mainly contended that the matter had already been decided in his favour. The case was registered as case No. 2 of 1984-85 State Vs. Raghuraj Singh. Prescribed authority under Ceiling Act decided the said case against the petitioner through order dated 17.2.1986 and held that petitioners possessed 5 Bigha 12 Biswa 18 Biswancy land as surplus land. Against the said order petitioner filed Appeal No. 1/ 1985-86. Additional Commissioner Agra division Agra dismissed the appeal on 16.4.1987. This writ petition is directed against the latter two orders i.e order dated 17.2.1986 and 16.4.1987.

In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the earlier order of the prescribed authority i.e. order dated 5.6.1976 was not final "amendments made under the Ceiling Act were not considered and as such another notice was given which was legal and in accordance with amendments made in the Ceiling Act." It has not been pointed out that which amendment was not taken into consideration at the earlier stage. The proceedings which were decided through earlier judgment were initiated after the amendment of 1976. Moreover the earlier judgement operated as res judicata. Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 2264 D.N.Singh Vs. Civil Judge has held that matters earlier decided by the prescribed authority can not be reopened and section 38-B of the Act does not apply to earlier decisions of the prescribed authority under the Ceiling Act.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set-aside.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.