Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2003 DIGILAW 822 (SC)

SHIV NARAIN SINGH v. State Of U. P.

2003-07-24

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL

body2003
ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE US QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT BY WHICH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT RAISED THREE CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY: (1) HE HAD TWO ADULT SONS AND ON THAT BASIS, LAND MEASURING 2-112 HECTARES OF EXCESS LAND SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HIM ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE U.P. IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1960 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT"). (2) THAT THE LAND WHICH IS "ABADI" WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE APPELLANT IS EXISTING, SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPTED FROM THE CALCULATION OF HIS HOLDING. (3) THE DECLARATION FILED BY HIS FATHER AS TO THE TOTAL HOLDING HAVING BEEN ONCE ACCEPTED, THE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT COMPETENT TO REOPEN THE CASE AND TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND HELD BY HIM AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER. THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT EXCLUDE "GROVE LAND" HELD BY THE APPELLANT IN CALCULATING THE TOTAL HOLDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT. 2. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY NEGATIVED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO AFFIRMED THE SAME. BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION THE APPELLANT COMPLAINED THAT THE APPLICATION FILED BY HIM FOR THE SPOT INSPECTION WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT ANY REASON WHILE REITERATING HIS OTHER CONTENTIONS. THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON OR VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, THE APPELLANT DID NOT SATISFY THAT THE EXEMPTION COULD BE GIVEN TO HIM FOR "GROVE LAND" AS HE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY LAND HELD BY HIM WAS "GROVE LAND" WITHIN THE MEANING AND DEFINITION OF "GROVE LAND" GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3(8) OF THE ACT. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE "GROVE LAND" ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE IT. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, IN REGARD TO THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION ON THE BASIS THAT CERTAIN LAND WAS ABADI LAND, HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ONLY SUCH ABADI LAND WHICH IS OCCUPIED ACTUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE COULD BE EXEMPTED AND NOT THE VAST AREA COVERED BY THE ABADI. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, IN REGARD TO THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION ON THE BASIS THAT CERTAIN LAND WAS ABADI LAND, HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ONLY SUCH ABADI LAND WHICH IS OCCUPIED ACTUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE COULD BE EXEMPTED AND NOT THE VAST AREA COVERED BY THE ABADI. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, IN REGARD TO CONSIDERATION OF THE HOLDING OF THE APPELLANT AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER, HAS HELD THAT IT WAS COMPETENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO DIRECT THE APPELLANT TO FILE A FRESH DECLARATION WHEN HE HAS SUCCEEDED TO THE PROPERTY FROM HIS FATHER AFTER HIS DEATH AS AND WHEN HIS HOLDING EXCEEDED THE CEILING LIMIT. WHEN THE APPELLANT FAILED TO GIVE A DECLARATION AS REQUIRED, THE AUTHORITY PROCEEDED TO PASS THE ORDER REJECTING HIS CONTENTION. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS ALREADY OBSERVED ABOVE, DID NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. THE HIGH COURT, DEALING WITH THE COMPLAINT OF THE APPELLANT THAT SPOT INSPECTION APPLICATION WAS REJECTED WITHOUT ANY REASON, HELD THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE ANY GRIEVANCE ABOUT THE SPOT INSPECTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND HE MADE THAT GRIEVANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 4. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT STATE POINTED OUT SECTIONS 29, 30 AND 38-B OF THE ACT IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICE DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO FILE A DECLARATION OF HIS HOLDING AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE RECORDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE HIGH COURT HAS AFFIRMED THEM. THIS BEING THE POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD GROUND OR A VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, BUT, WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.