Smt. Sandli Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Supplementary-Affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

This writ petition assails the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 26.2.2011 under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The Petitioners are the daughters of Late Smt. Bhagwani Devi, widow of Late Lallan Singh. They claim rights over the disputed land under a Will said to have been executed by Bhagwani Devi, who died on 10.12.1989. The objection has been rejected holding that as against the claim of the Petitioners, who in turn claim succession through Bhagwani Devi, the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27.4.1977 is to be treated as final and, therefore, the said land is declared to be surplus.

Sri Pandey submits that the said order cannot be treated to be final in view of the judgment of the appellate authority dated 6.3.1981 in an appeal filed by the State itself being Appeal No. 552 of 1977. He contends that the State is bound by the said judgment where the issues indicated therein including the issue relating to Hausila Singh having a separate share was still alive.

Sri Pandey invites the attention of the Court to the order dated 6.3.1981 and contends that the impugned order has erroneously construed the same for the purpose of proceeding to declare the land to be surplus when the aforesaid issue of the separate share of Hausila Singh is yet to be determined.

He further contends that the writ petition filed by Hausila Singh has already been allowed on 31.8.2010 being Writ Petition No. 8054 of 1988 and while allowing the said writ petition, this Court in the judgment had categorically indicated that the Prescribed Authority shall determine the issue in the light of the judgment of District Judge dated 6.3.1981. The submission, therefore, is that the High Court itself has directed the Prescribed Authority to proceed in terms of the judgment dated 6.3.1981 which also in turn indicates that the controversies, apart from the issue raised therein, were also permitted to be raised again.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the said issue, which has been raised, can be contested by the Petitioners before the appellate authority in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that the period for filing the appeal is over and, therefore, there is every likelihood of the appeal not being entertained on merit.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioners to prefer an appeal within 15 days from today and in the event such an appeal is preferred before the appellate authority, the same shall be entertained on merits and shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

In case the Petitioners apprehend dispossession, it is open to them to move an application for interim relief before the appellate authority.