9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment of Single Judge of Allahabad High Court allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petitions u/s 17464 of 1984, 8825 of 1995, and 19050 of 1995 regarding the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954.
Background: The respondent's land was declared surplus under the Act, and possession was taken after no appeal was filed. Later, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed challenging the reduction of land area during consolidation proceedings. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition based on public purpose reduction of area during consolidation. Appellant's Argument: Appellant's counsel contended that the High Court's approach was erroneous as the petition under Section 151 was not maintainable when statutory appeal options were available. They argued that the Act and Consolidation Act operate in different fields, making a belated attempt to challenge concluded issues impermissible. Respondent's Argument: Respondent's counsel argued that there cannot be two different areas under the Act and Consolidation Act, justifying the High Court's decision. Court's Analysis: The Court highlighted the principles governing inherent powers, stating that such powers should supplement, not replace, remedies provided by statutes like CPC. Inherent powers cannot be used when alternative remedies exist. The Court's power is limited when specific provisions cover a topic, and Section 151 CPC is meant to supplement, not override, existing provisions. Court's Decision: The High Court's conclusions were deemed cryptic and lacked a basis. The Court referred to previous cases to emphasize that inherent powers cannot be used to reopen settled matters or when specific statutory provisions exist. The High Court's orders were set aside, and subsequent writ petitions were allowed based on the first writ petition's decision. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed without costs, as the High Court's orders were unsustainable.
|
