9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that no other controversy shall be allowed to be raised hereafter before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority only meant that the remand would be restricted to re-determination of the nature of the land and all other issues decided which have not been disturbed of the order of the District Judge in appeal shall not be allowed to be re-agitated. From the contents of the order of the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that the writ petition of the holder of the land against the judgment of the District Judge had only succeeded with an order of the remand limited to re-examination of the nature of the lands. In all other respect, the order of the District Judge was confirmed prohibiting reopening of the same. We have already mentioned above that the order of the District Judge passed in appeal dated 05.8.1977 was not challenged by the State of U.P. and therefore, that order to the extent it was in favour of the appellant, had attained finality and could not have been disturbed. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court in their orders passed on 29.3.1996 and 13.3.1997 respectively, overlooked this aspect of the case of the finality of the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objections raised by the appellant and declared 23.84, 12/25 acres in two villages as surplus land in terms of it being 'irrigated land' with the appellant. 4. The appellant appealed under the Act to the Court of District Judge. His appeal was partly allowed by Judgment dated 05.3.1977 holding inter alia in his favour that he has 1/10th share in the lands in question. The land treated as grove is required to be excluded. The District Judge also held that Plot No. 602 in village Raghapati, sold on 10.12.1971 for adequate consideration, was a bona fide sale and deserved to be excluded. On the classification of land into irrigated or unirrigated the objection of the appellant with regard to certain lands in two villages viz., Rampur and Raghapati, was rejected. The District Judge, after allowing some of the objections of the appellant as mentioned above, sent -back the case to the Prescribed Authority to re-determine the surplus land of the appellant. 5. According to the appellant, the order of the District Judge passed in appeal dated 05.8.1977 has attained finality as the State did not prefer any writ petition against the same. Only appellant approached the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be in the light of the law laid down in the said Division Bench pronouncement of this Court. The Prescribed Authority shall deal with each separate plot number an and state how both the requirements laid down in any of the three categories of Section 4-A of the Act stand satisfied or do not stand satisfied. Thereafter the plots shall be decided to be irrigated or unirrigated in the light of the law laid down in the said Division Bench pronouncement. The Prescribed Authority shall thereafter determine the ceiling area and the surplus land and allow the appellant to give in choice the aforementioned plots to be included in the surplus land of the appellant. I have already mentioned the said seven plots which the appellant have been acquired by the State for the canal purposes. No other controversy shall be allowed to be raised hereafter before the Prescribed Authority or before the Appellate Court in case am appeal is filed against the fresh decision of the Prescribed Authority. There will be no order as to costs. [Emphasis added by underlining] 6. After the remand by the High Court to the Prescribed Authority, the latter passed a fresh order on 29.3.1996 and, according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order dated 29.3.1996 of the Prescribed Authority passed after remand in treating the earlier order dated 05.8.1977 passed in appeal by the District Judge to have been totally set aside by the earlier order of the High Court dated 19.01.1979 passed in writ petition against the order of the District Judge dated 05.8.1977. From the order of the High Court extracted, it is clear that the whole order of the District Judge was not set aside. It was set aside only with respect to categorisation of lands in the two villages and the remand was restricted to fresh determination of the same. The observations that 'no other controversy shall be allowed to be raised hereafter' before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority' only meant that the remand would be restricted to re-determination of the nature of the land and all other issues decided which have not been disturbed of the order of the District Judge in appeal shall not be allowed to be re-agitated. 12. From the contents of the order of the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that the writ petition of the holder of the land against the judgment of the District Judge had only succeeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
