Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the High Court which had remanded proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The appellant, State of U.P., challenged the High Court's remand order in favour of the respondent, Budh Singh (dead) through legal representatives. The Supreme Court had earlier heard the appeal and, by order dated 25 September 1995, noted that the High Court had relied on an earlier Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Krishan Kumar (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1977), and directed that the judgment be placed on record for perusal. After perusing that judgment, the Supreme Court found that the learned single Judge who rendered the impugned judgment had misread the view taken by the Division Bench in Krishan Kumar's case. The Division Bench had really held that Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act was wide enough to capture findings or decisions given under the Ceiling Act even prior to its commencement. It had not been held that in subsequent ceiling proceedings the earlier finding would be binding unless subsequent amendments in the Ceiling Act justified reopening, as the High Court had observed. The Supreme Court further noted that in Krishan Kumar's case an argument had been advanced to cut down the width of Section 38-B by inviting attention to Section 31(5), but the Bench held that Section 31(5) had no impact on the applicability of Section 38-B. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the view taken in the impugned judgment could not be upheld. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decision of the Prescribed Authority rendered on 29 June 1976, which had been affirmed by the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 25 July 1977. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's remand order had no leg to stand. The appeal was allowed accordingly, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Interpretation of Section 38-B - Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act is wide enough to include findings or decisions given under the Ceiling Act prior to its commencement; Section 31(5) has no impact on its applicability - Ceiling Act, Sections 38-B, 31(5) - The High Court in the impugned judgment misread the earlier Division Bench decision in Krishan Kumar's case which had held that Section 38-B was wide enough to capture findings or decisions given under the Ceiling Act as well prior to the commencement of Section 38-B; the High Court had incorrectly observed that earlier findings would be binding unless subsequent amendments in the Ceiling Act justified reopening. Held that the view taken in the impugned judgment cannot be upheld; the decision of the Prescribed Authority rendered on 29th June 1976, affirmed by the Appellate Court on 25th July 1977, is restored; appeal allowed, no order as to costs. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court misread the Division Bench decision in Krishan Kumar's case regarding the scope of Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act; whether Section 31(5) affects the applicability of Section 38-B
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside; decisions of the Prescribed Authority dated 29th June 1976 and the Appellate Court dated 25th July 1977 restored; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act is wide enough to capture findings or decisions given under the Ceiling Act prior to its commencement
- Section 31(5) has no impact on the applicability of Section 38-B
