Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.R.SINGH versus STATE

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.R.Singh v. State - WRIT - C No. 28849 of 1990 [2006] RD-AH 14835 (30 August 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.4

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28849 of 1990

Ram Raj Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and others

______

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th February 1990 passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 17th September 1990 passed by the appellate authority. In response to a notice issued to the petitioner purporting to be under Section 10(2) of the Act the petitioner submitted his reply and objection that there was no details in the notice inasmuch as the matter has already been adjudicated upon when previous notice was issued to the petitioner on 26th July 1977. Petitioner's appeal was allowed by the appellate authority on 4th January 1978 and it was held by the appellate authority that nothing surplus has been found with the petitioner. The order passed by the prescribed authority, however, makes an observation which reads as under:-

"It is clear that this will not prevent the State from making further enquiry, collecting proper evidence and reopening the case of the petitioner under Section 29 and 30 of the Act and declaring surplus land of the petitioner, if any, according to law and according to the definition of irrigated land in clauses second and third of section 4-A of the Act."

The State, denying the aforesaid, submitted that this notice has been issued in order to determine the petitioner's irrigated and unirrigated land on the basis of material collected in terms of the order dated 4.1.1978. The prescribed authority before whom objection was raised in pursuance of notice dated 1st September 1989 found that the objections filed by the petitioner are baseless and declared 1-17-0 hectares of land in terms of irrigated land as surplus. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate authority. Thus this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second notice dated 1st September 1989 was without jurisdiction as none of the conditions prescribed under Section 29 of the Act are present. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision earlier given by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority adjudicating upon the surplus land acted as a bar in terms of principle of re-sjudicata and thirdly on facts the findings are perverse. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that mere mention of wrong provision will not invalidate the notice in terms of decision reported in 1992 (2) SCC  323. He has further submitted that even assuming the provision is wrongly mentioned it is in pursuance and in view of subsequent material that this notice has been issued. To me it appears that it is not open to the petitioner, in existence of order passed by the appellate authority dated 4th January 1978 which has not been challenged by the petitioner and which has become final, to raise this objection regarding issuance of notice.

Now coming to second objection raised by the petitioner that second notice would be barred by res-judicata. The prescribed authority and the appellate authority has considered this aspect and it cannot be said that second notice is barred by principle of res-judicata. On the finding of facts both the authorities have given their finding which is concurrent and nothing has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is perverse and suffers from any illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of what has been stated above I do not find any force in this writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt: 30.8.2006.

mhu.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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