Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33534 of 2004 Petitioner :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Gurdeep Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.,Arvind Srivastava Iii Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Sharma,SC
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
An abatement application has been filed informing the Court that the respondent - Gurdeep Singh has died on 6.3.2007. Even though no substitution application has been filed the application informs to the Court that Balvinder Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh Gill are the legal heirs and representatives of late Gurdeep Singh.
Office may delete the name of the respondent Gurdeep Singh and substitute his name with that of his legal heirs and representatives, namely, Balvinder Kaur w/o Gurdeep Singh and Sukhjinder Singh Gill s/o late Gurdeep Singh.
After a notice was issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, to the predecessor in interest of the petitiner, namely, Sri Fauza Singh, the predecessor in interest of the respondents Sri Fauza Singh replied to the notice. The Prescribed Authority after considering the notice framed as many as 10 issues and declared 25.30 acres of land as surplus. The tenure holder filed an appeal which was partly allowed by the District Judge, Rampur, by the judgement and order dated 29.4.1975 reducing the area of the surplus land from 25.30. acres to 21.98 acres. Feeling aggrieved by the fact that 21.98 acres of the land had still been declared surplus Fauza Singh filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed on 4.4.1978 and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision. After the matter was decided by the Appellate Court on 30.5.2003, the instant writ petition was filed.
Learned Standing Counsel who is the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while deciding the appeal, the Appellate Court had entertained such issues which were not to be considered as per the order of the High Court dated 4.4.1978 and had erroneously adjudicated on certain issues which stood concluded after the decision of the High Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that when the High Court on 4.4.1978 remanded the matter it had stated that the High Court had quashed the Appellate Court's order and, thereafter, it had stated that while determining the surplus land, the Appellate Court had to see the source of irrigation and had to see as to whether one crop or two crops were being grown on the land in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court had not gone beyond the issues which were remanded by the High Court and had looked into the case as per the order of the High Court and, therefore, had not gone beyond the scope of remand.
Having heard the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the view that definitely the Appellate Court adjudicated the Appeal as per the directions of the High Court and did not go beyond the remand. The appellate court's order, therefore, requires no interference.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 PK (Siddhartha Varma,J.)