Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to allotment of surplus land under land ceiling laws. Arjuna & Others (appellants) were aggrieved by a High Court order in a land ceiling matter involving State of Maharashtra and private respondents. The High Court allowed an appeal on the ground that private respondents were within the ceiling limit, and therefore, allotment of surplus land to the respondents was illegal. However, in the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court, ground No.5 specifically pleaded that the respondents were declared to be surplus holders and the excess land was assigned to the appellants. By order dated March 22, 1995, the Supreme Court directed both parties to produce the return filed by the respondents. The appellants were directed to get certified copy of the return. Dr. N.N. Ghatate, senior counsel for respondents, stated that through instructing counsel Mr. S.V. Deshpande, letters were written to the party but no response was received. Mr. Parekh, counsel for appellants, stated that they could not procure the certified copy. Consequently, ground No.5 remained undisputed. The Supreme Court noted that despite directions, the return filed by respondents was not produced. In this situation, ground No.5, which asserted that respondents were declared surplus holders and excess land assigned to appellants, remained uncontroverted. The Supreme Court accepted the undisputed pleading as correct, leading to the conclusion that the High Court's basis was erroneous. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order. However, to protect the respondents' rights if the facts were otherwise, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to file a review petition within two months from the date of the order, in case they were declared to be within the ceiling limit. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Surplus Land Allotment - Undisputed Pleading - Not mentioned - The High Court allowed appeal holding private respondents within ceiling limit, making allotment of surplus land to respondents illegal. In SLP, ground No.5 specifically pleaded respondents were declared surplus holders and excess land was assigned to appellants. Supreme Court directed production of return filed by respondents, but respondents could not produce response and appellants could not procure certified copy, leaving ground No.5 undisputed. Held that appeal must be allowed on that basis, High Court order set aside, and respondents granted liberty to file review petition within two months if they were declared within ceiling limit.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the appeal on the ground that private respondents were within the ceiling limit despite the specific pleading in ground No.5 of the special leave petition that they were declared surplus holders and excess land was assigned to the appellants.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and granted liberty to respondents to file a review petition within two months if they were declared within ceiling limit. No costs.
Law Points
- Undisputed pleading can form basis of decision
- burden to produce record on concerned party
- review liberty if facts are contrary
