RAM SAHAI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were started against the Petitioner after issuing a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act in the year 1974. He filed objection and alleged that his son Mahendra Singh was major. It was also alleged therein that the land which has been transferred through sale deeds has been erroneously clubbed with his holding and that his share mentioned therein has been wrongly shown. The Petitioner led evidence and established his claim before the Prescribed Authority which was accepted by him. The Prescribed Authority specifically held that the son of the Petitioner was major and that the sale deeds were executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. He further held that the share of the Petitioner was 1/4th and declared 0.47 acres as surplus area by his order dated 26-10-1974. Neither the Petitioner nor the State preferred any appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which became final.

(2.) The Prescribed Authority issued a fresh notice under Section 10(2) of the Act which was served upon the Petitioner some where in the year 1975. He filed objection contending that his son was major and the land already transferred has been erroneously clubbed with his holding and further that his share has been wrongly shown. The objection of the Petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. He held that the son of the Petitioner was not major. He further held that the transfers made after 24-1-1971 were liable to be ignored. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority the Petitioner went in appeal. Before the appellate authority apart from raising other questions it was also urged that the judgment given by the Prescribed Authority in the earlier ceiling proceedings would operate as res judicata. The appellate authority repelled all the contentions and held that the earlier order would not operate as res judicata in view of Section 38-B of the Act. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that provisions of Section 38-B of the Act were not applicable in the present case and the judgment given by the Prescribed Authority in the earlier ceiling proceedings was binding upon the ceiling authorities in the subsequent proceedings and would operate as res judicata.