1996 JTR(SC) 2066
1997 1 ICC 559 ; 1996 10 JT 738 ; 1996 8 Scale 712 ; 1997 2 SCC 181 ; 1997 KHC 3570 ; 1996 8 Supreme 53001
1996(8) Supreme 530
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Faizan Uddin and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
State of U.P. -Appellant
versus
Budh Singh (D) by LRs. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5816 of 1983
Decided on 3-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.C. Verma, S.P. Khera and A.K. Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.S. Pundir, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:CEILING ACT : S.38(b)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.11
(A) The impugned proceedings involve the interpretation and application of the Ceiling Act read with the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act and Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court examines the interplay between these provisions in the context of prior findings recorded under the Ceiling Act and their binding effect on subsequent proceedings. The earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Krishan Kumars case clarifies the scope of Section 38-B, emphasizing its comprehensive applicability to findings decided under the Ceiling Act, including those predating its commencement. The impugned single-judge judgment misread this precedent by introducing a requirement of amendments justifying the reopening of earlier findings, a position not supported by the Division Bench ruling.
(B) The key legal principles include the binding nature of prior ceiling findings, the wide scope of Section 38-B to capture pre-commencement decisions, and the non-applicability of Section 31(5) to restrict this scope. The case underscores that an appellate authority must respect earlier findings unless expressly empowered to revisit them under the statute.
Facts of the case:
An earlier Prescribed Authority passed a decision under the Ceiling Act, which was affirmed by an Appellate Court. A subsequent impugned judgment questioned the validity of relying on the earlier finding without considering potential amendments in the Ceiling Act.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned judgment misconstrued the Division Benchs interpretation in Krishan Kumars case and incorrectly read into Section 38-B a requirement for amendments to justify reopening earlier findings.
Issues:
Whether Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act applies to findings or decisions given prior to its commencement and whether Section 31(5) impacts its applicability.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act is wide enough to encompass findings or decisions given under the Ceiling Act, including those made prior to its commencement, and earlier findings remain binding unless expressly overridden.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the decision of the Prescribed Authority affirmed by the Appellate Court is restored.
(A) The impugned proceedings involve the interpretation and application of the Ceiling Act read with the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act and Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court examines the interplay between these provisions in the context of prior findings recorded under the Ceiling Act and their binding effect on subsequent proceedings. The earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Krishan Kumars case clarifies the scope of Section 38-B, emphasizing its comprehensive applicability to findings decided under the Ceiling Act, including those predating its commencement. The impugned single-judge judgment misread this precedent by introducing a requirement of amendments justifying the reopening of earlier findings, a position not supported by the Division Bench ruling.
(B) The key legal principles include the binding nature of prior ceiling findings, the wide scope of Section 38-B to capture pre-commencement decisions, and the non-applicability of Section 31(5) to restrict this scope. The case underscores that an appellate authority must respect earlier findings unless expressly empowered to revisit them under the statute.
Facts of the case:
An earlier Prescribed Authority passed a decision under the Ceiling Act, which was affirmed by an Appellate Court. A subsequent impugned judgment questioned the validity of relying on the earlier finding without considering potential amendments in the Ceiling Act.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned judgment misconstrued the Division Benchs interpretation in Krishan Kumars case and incorrectly read into Section 38-B a requirement for amendments to justify reopening earlier findings.
Issues:
Whether Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act applies to findings or decisions given prior to its commencement and whether Section 31(5) impacts its applicability.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act is wide enough to encompass findings or decisions given under the Ceiling Act, including those made prior to its commencement, and earlier findings remain binding unless expressly overridden.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the decision of the Prescribed Authority affirmed by the Appellate Court is restored.
JUDGMENT
B.L. Hansaria, J.-This appeal was once heard earlier and in the order passed on 25th September, 1995 it was stated that as the High Court in the impugned judgment has relied on the earlier pronouncement by Division Bench of the same High Court in Krishan Kumar s case (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1977), it would be appropriate to peruse that judgment, which being not on record a direction was given to place the same for our perusal. It has been so done. We have gone through the judgment and, according to us, the learned single Judge who rendered impugned judgment misread the view taken by the Division Bench in Krishan Kumar s case. In that judgment, the Division Bench has really held that Section 38-B was wide enough to "capture findings or decisions given under the Ceiling Act as well prior to the commencement of Section 38-B". It has really not been held in that case that "in the subsequent ceiling proceedings, the earlier finding would be binding unless it can be shown that after the earlier ceiling proceedings there occurred some amendments in the Ceiling Act which justified that reopening of a finding recorded in the earlier ceiling proceedings" as observed in the impugned judgment. No doubt in Krishan Kumar s case an argument was advanced to cut down the width of Section 38-B by inviting the attention of the Bench to Section 31(5); the Bench, however, held that that Section had no impact on the applicability of Section 38-B.
2. In view of the above, the view taken in the impugned judgment cannot be upheld. The same is, therefore, set aside and the decision of the Prescribed Authority rendered on 29th June, 1976, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court by its judgment dated July 25, 1977 is restored. The High Court s remand order has, therefore, no leg to stand.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******