MAM CHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri A.N. Verma learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The State does not appear to have filed any counter affidavit and the same is not on record inspite of time having been granted again on 18.11.2010.

(2.) This petition has been filed by the tenure holders assailing the order of the learned Commissioner, Meerut whereby the appeal filed by the State under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 has been allowed with a direction to the prescribed authority to rehear the entire matter again and dispose of the objections raised on behalf of the State in relation to the land which had been shown not to be surplus by the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) The petitioner tenure holders took up a defence that the provisions of Section 38-B of the 1960 Act did not allow the reopening of issues which had been decided finally and they are only a protection to the State that any decision given at any earlier occasion will not operate as res-judicata if the said issue is being retried in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Act after the matter is finalized, makes a provision for issuance of a subsequent notice provided there is increase in the area of the tenure holder under Section 29 of the Act or even otherwise if any other claim has remained pending or is being adjudicated upon by the authorities. In the instant case none of these contingencies arose and therefore the issuance of notice under Section 38-B was in my opinion totally unwarranted.