High CourtDivision Bench2007-05-07Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs.

Prem Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 2392 of 2007

Neutral Citation:[2007] 6 S.C.R.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
D. K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2007-05-07
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The appellants shall be impleaded as parties in the proceedings. They are granted eight weeks to file counter affidavits, and the High Court may grant additional time if necessary. The State of U.P. may file counter affidavit, if advised. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prem Kumar
Anr.

Respondents

State of U.P.
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rakesh Dwivedi
• Lakshmi Raman Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• S.R. Singh
• Rajeev Dubey
• Kamlendra Mishra
• Nitin Bhardwaj
• Mirdula A Ray Bharadwaj

Case Synopsis & Summary

Prem Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. concerns the validity of a writ petition decided by the Allahabad High Court in the context of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (the Ceiling Act). The respondents issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act to Bhairo Prasad, Jagannath Prasad and Ram Prasad, and the prescribed authority, by an order dated 21.3.1986, declared about 107 bighas of land of Jagannath, Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi as surplus; that order was never challenged. An appeal followed and culminated in further orders, but the High Court later disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondents in a cryptic, summary manner, relying on the 21.3.1986 order, which did not directly concern the appellants. The appellants were not impleaded as parties in the writ proceedings. The petitioners contended that without their impleadment and without a detailed discussion, the High Court could not rely on the earlier order to decide the present dispute. The Supreme Court, noting the absence of any reference to the effect of the 21.3.1986 order on the appellants’ lands, set aside the High Court’s impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing impleadment of the appellants and providing time for counter affidavits. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Art. 226U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, s. 10(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the respondents filed a writ petition without impleading them and the High Court disposed of the petition summarily in a cryptic manner, relying on a 21.3.1986 order of the Prescribed Authority which did not affect the appellants’ lands. They submit that, without impleading the appellants and without a full discussion of the consequences of the 21.3.1986 order on their lands, the impugned High Court order could not have been passed. The appellants point out that the 21.3.1986 order related to different parties and was not challenged, and argue that the High Court should have examined its relevance to the present dispute before disposing of the writ petition. They request setting aside the High Court order and remitting the matter to enable their impleadment and opportunity to present their case, with appropriate directions and time for counter affidavits.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the writ petition was properly maintainable and that the High Court’s reliance on the 21.3.1986 order was justified since it determined certain surplus lands and their effect. They contend that the impugned orders were based on evidence and relevant records, and that the appellants, who were not parties to the writ proceeding, cannot compel their impleadment at this stage. They maintain that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and that the earlier orders remain valid in law, and that the appeal should be dismissed or the High Court’s reasoning upheld, rather than remanded for impleadment of non-parties. They emphasize that due process requires careful consideration but argue that the remedy is to challenge the specific orders with proper party participation, not to reopen or invalidate the writ determination on grounds of missing parties without clear causal link to the affected parcels of land.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Prem Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## PREM KUMAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ## MAY 7, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] _Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Non-impleadment of partyRespondents, without impleading the Appellants, filed writ petition-High Court disposed of the same summarily in a cryptic manner-On facts, .held,_ c _without impleading Appellants as parties, the impugned order of High Court could not have been passed-Matter remitted !o High Court for fresh consideration-Appellants directed to be impieaded as parties in the proceedings-UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, I 960-s. I 0(2)._ In the present appeal, the primary contention is that the Respondents, without impleading the Appellants, filed a writ petition and without any detailed discussion, the High Court allowed the same relying on a 1986 order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which did not have any effect so far as the Appellants were concerned and related to three other persons. D .... E Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily and rather in a cryptic manner. There is no reference in its order as to the effect of the order dated 21.3.1986. That being so, without impleading the appellants F as parties the impugned order could not have been passed. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration. The appellants shall be impleaded as parties in the proceedings. [Paras 7 and 10) (103-G-H; 104-F-G) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2392 of2007. ## G A_ From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43437 of 2002. \-- Rakesh Dwivedi and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants. H 102 103 PREMKUMARv. STATEOFU.P. (PASAYAT,J.] S.R. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Nitin Bhardwaj and Mirdula A Ray Bharadwaj for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,,_ **DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J.** I. Leave granted. **B** 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. 3. Primary stand in this appeal is that the respondents, without impleading the present appellants, filed a writ petition and without any detailed discussion, C the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying on an order dated 21.3.1986 passed by the prescribed authority which did not have any effect so far as the present appellants are concerned. 4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: **D** ·"' _5._ A notice was issued under Section 10(2) ofU.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the 'Act'). The said notice was issued to Bhairo Prasad, Jagannath Prasad and Ram Prasad and by order dated 13.2.1979 certain lands were declared to be surplus. An appeal was preferred against the said order. The learned District Judge, Allahabad by order dated E 3.2.1981 remanded the matter and the prescribed authority was directed to decide the effect of sale deeds executed by Jagannath, Bhairo Prasad, Madho Prasad and Smt. Ganga Devi. The Prescribed Authority decided the matter by an order dated 21.3.1986 and declared about 107 bighas ofland of Jagannath, Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi as surplus. There was no challenge to this order. F F 6. The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 11.12.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad whereby the appeal filed against the orders dated 31.1.1994 and 23.9.1995 was dismissed. G 7. The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily and rather in a cryptic manner with the following observations: "Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when by the aforesaid order C:ated 21.3 .1986 the Prescribed Authority decided the **H** ## 104 ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. ## A matter and declared an area of 107 bighas as surplus and this order has become final as no appeal against the same was filed, only an area of I 07 'Jighas could have been taken by the State and, therefore, the impugned orders dated 25.9.2002 and 30.3.2002 are not sustainable. B c The submission made by the learned counsel has got force. The writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.3.2002 and 25.9.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad respectively are quashed. It is held that the petitioners have got an area of I 07 bighas as surplus land, possession of which, if not taken earlier, may be taken by the State within a period of 2 months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order." 8. The appellants who were not parties before the High Court pursuant to the permission granted have filed this appeal. According to them the order dated 21.3.1986 related to Jagannath, Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi and had nothing to do so far as the present appellants are concerned. In fact the D Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer in order dated 31.1.1994 has clearly observed that the dispute did not relate to Ram Prasad and Bhairo Prasad. In the order of the Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer it was clearly noted in the orders dated 23.9.1995 and 31.1.1994 that the orders did not have any relevance so far as the appellants are concerned. E 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in an earlier writ petition i.e. 11749 of 1995 and 13584 of 1996 certain directions had been given which have relevance. 10. We find that there is no reference in the impugned order of the High F Court as to the effect of the order dated 21.3.1986 on the lands of Bhairo Prasad and Ram Prasad are concerned. That being so, without impleading the appellants as parties the impugned order could not have been passed. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. The present appellants shall be impleaded as parties in the proceedings. They are granted 8 weeks time to file the counter G affidavit, if any. The High Court shall, if deemed necessary, grant time to the writ petitioners to file further affidavit. The State ofU.P. may also file counter affidavit, if so advised. 11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. H B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.