Case Note & Summary
The proceeding originated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The first determination by the Civil Judge, Jalaun on 01-05-1975 held that no land of respondent No.1 could be declared surplus. Subsequently, a fresh proceeding was initiated, and the Prescribed Authority (Additional Sub-Divisional Officer) determined an area of 31.73 acres of land in terms of irrigated land as surplus. On appeal, the Civil Judge, Jalaun modified the Prescribed Authority's order on 25-07-1977. The respondents argued that the earlier finding operated as res judicata, but the Civil Judge rejected that argument on the ground that the earlier judgment was delivered before 10-10-1975. The respondents then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The High Court accepted the respondents' plea and held that the findings operated as res judicata, based on a Division Bench judgment dated 21-09-1979 in Krishan Kumar's case, Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1977. The State of U.P. appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that Section 38-B, as inserted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976 with effect from 10-10-1975, provides that no finding or decision before its commencement shall bar re-trial of the proceeding or issue under the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended from time to time. The Court noted that on its language Section 38-B may not support the High Court's view. At the same time, a counter-affidavit stated that more than ten thousand cases had been decided by the High Court on the same view. Consequently, the Court considered it necessary to peruse the High Court judgment in Krishan Kumar's case, which was not on record. It directed the appellant's counsel to place that judgment on record and to state whether it was appealed against and, if so, the result. It also directed a responsible officer of the State to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the second proceeding was initiated against the respondents. Four weeks were allowed for this purpose. The Court further directed that the records of the Prescribed Authority be made available at the next hearing and put up the case for further hearing after four weeks, with a copy of the order to be served urgently on counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court did not pronounce a final decision on the effect of Section 38-B; it reserved the question for later consideration after receiving the required material.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Land Ceiling - Statutory Bar of Res Judicata - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 38-B - The issue arose whether a finding in earlier ceiling proceedings delivered before 10.10.1975 could operate as res judicata to bar re-trial; Section 38-B provides that no finding or decision given before its commencement shall bar re-trial of such proceeding or issue under the Act in accordance with the provisions as amended from time to time. The Supreme Court observed that on its language Section 38-B may not support the High Court's view that prior findings operate as res judicata; however, in view of the counter-affidavit stating that more than ten thousand cases were decided on that view, the Court directed production of the High Court judgment in Krishan Kumar's case and further material. Held that final determination of the effect of Section 38-B is deferred pending perusal of the earlier judgment and affidavit (Paras 1-5). B) Practice and Procedure - Supreme Court Orders - Production of Records and Affidavit - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The Supreme Court directed the counsel for the appellant to place the High Court judgment in Krishan Kumar's case on record and state whether it was appealed against and with what result; it also required a responsible officer of the State to swear an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the second proceeding came to be initiated against the respondents and directed that records of the Prescribed Authority be made available when the case is next taken up. Held that the matter was put up for further hearing after four weeks with copy of the order to be served urgently on learned counsel for parties (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
The effect of Section 38-B of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and whether previous findings in ceiling proceedings delivered before 10-10-1975 operate as res judicata to bar re-trial.
Final Decision
Supreme Court did not decide finally; it directed the appellant to place the Krishan Kumar judgment on record, disclose whether it was appealed against and with what result, file an affidavit by a responsible officer explaining circumstances of second proceeding, and make Prescribed Authority records available; matter put up for further hearing after four weeks.
Law Points
- Section 38-B of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
- 1960 provides that no finding or decision given before its commencement shall bar re-trial of such proceeding or issue under the Act in accordance with provisions as amended from time to time
- res judicata may not operate if statutory bar applies
- High Court's view that prior findings operate as res judicata requires examination in light of Section 38-B.
