Starting Fresh Round Of Litigation When Objection Regarding Family Settlement Was Rejected By All Courts Is Abuse Of Process of Law: SC Asks DM To Take Possession Of Surplus Land
|The Supreme Court held that once the entire objection regarding family settlement was rejected not only by all the Authorities but also by the Courts,then there was absolutely no occasion for starting a fresh round of litigation which was nothing less than an abuse of the process of law.
The Apex Court was considering a matter pertaining to the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 in the State of Uttar Pradesh vide which the land over and above a certain limit was to be declared surplus and was then to vest with the State.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah asserted, “Meanwhile, not satisfied with the dismissal of the case right up to the Apex Court, an innovative ploy was devised, which is nothing short of an abuse of the process and has thus reached now to this Court.”
AOR Tanmaya Agarwal represented the Appellant while AOR Satpal Singh represented the Respondents.
In this case, the Prescribed Authority prepared a statement taking into consideration the entire land of the tenure holder and then a notice was issued under Section 10(2) of the Act to the main recorded land owner i.e., Hari Shankar Tiwari in 1974 by the Prescribed Authority as to why from his large land holding a portion be not declared as surplus. Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari (father of the present respondent no.1) filed his objections wherein he stated that there had been a family settlement year 1967 according to which shares of all the family members were determined. In the year 1970 one of the sons of Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari had also instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in respect of non-agricultural properties, which were also then included in the memorandum of family.
The said suit was decreed in the year 1970 and on the basis of family settlement the land was divided and the share of each family member was demarcated. A suit was also filed for permanent injunction for restraining Tiwari from interfering in the agricultural lands. However, the Prescribed Authority passed an order in 1974 declaring 37 Bigha 5 Biswa and 17.8 Biswansi on Tiwari as surplus under the provisions of the Act of 1960. Tiwari’s appeal before the District Court was partly allowed by reducing the surplus land. It was noticed by the Court that the institution of the Suit by Tiwari was on January 30, 1971 i.e. after the cut-off date of January 24,1971 which meant that in spite of the decree dated August 9,1971, it was to be deemed that no partition took place at all, in terms of sub-section (7) of Section 5.
Upon remand, again by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the land was declared as surplus. Against this, a writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court but the same was dismissed. In the first round of litigation the respondents had lost from all courts including this Court (albeit by withdrawal of petition), and thus claims based on family settlement, etc. stood rejected.
The Apex Court noticed that an innovative ploy was devised, which was nothing short of an abuse of the process by the present respondent no.1 (son of Late Hari Shankar Tiwari) in moving an application under Section 11 stating that they were joint holders of the land and they were not given any notice by the Prescribed Authority. The Authority held that each of the members of the erstwhile joint family got their share separated and each of them were in exclusive possession of the property.
When the State filed an Appeal, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow held that once the matter had been settled and had attained finality, it should not have been raked up again.The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner later.
The Bench said, “Once the entire objection of Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari regarding the family settlement, etc. were rejected not only by all the authorities, but also by the High Court and then ultimately by this Court, where the Special Leave Petition itself was withdrawn, there was absolutely no occasion for starting a fresh round of litigation which were nothing less than a ruse and an abuse of the process of law, apart from being barred by Res Judicata.”
The Bench also noted that the Additional Commissioner while allowing the appeal of the State had made a stringent comment on the Prescribed Authority by saying “this decision by the sub-ordinate court also raises question on the integrity of the learned Prescribed Authority”. The Bench showed its agreement with the views of the Additional Commissioner that the entire mischief was done by the Prescribed Authority, who should not have interfered in this matter.
“Now it is too late in the day to issue a notice for an order which was passed in the year 1985 by the Prescribed Authority, though this is indeed a case where a departmental enquiry should have been instituted against the concerned officer”,the Bench held while setting aside the High Court order.
The Bench further ordered, “The District Magistrate, Hardoi is directed to immediately take possession of the surplus land as declared surplus (33 Biswa 8 Bigha and 14.8 Biswansi) and let the same be distributed to the landless or in accordance with law and process which is now to be followed in such cases.”
Cause Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. V. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024 INSC 989)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Tanmaya Agarwal,Advocates Wrick Chatterjee, Aditi Agarwal
Respondents: AOR Satpal Singh