In the wake of India’s independence, the government enacted various land reform laws aimed at addressing the historical land inequalities and redistributing land among the marginalized sections of society. Among these was the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which sought to limit the amount of land an individual could hold, declaring any excess as surplus, to be vested with the State for redistribution.
The Act, along with the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was implemented to ensure land equity, as one of the main commitments of the post-independence leaders was the redistribution of land for justice and equity. The ceiling on land holdings was introduced to promote land reforms and redistribute land to landless farmers, especially after India gained independence. As land was a state subject under the Constitution of India’s Seventh Schedule, such reforms were legislated by individual states, and Uttar Pradesh was among the first to initiate these reforms.
Family Settlement and the Conflict:
The dispute in this case revolves around the enforcement of land ceiling provisions and the impact of family settlements. In 1967, a family settlement was reached among the family members of Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari, regarding the division of agricultural and non-agricultural properties. This settlement was formalized through a memorandum, and a court case followed, which resulted in a decree by 1970. However, the issue arose when the surplus land was being declared, and the family members claimed that the land division, as per the settlement, had already allotted specific shares to each member.
Despite the family settlement and court decrees, the Prescribed Authority, tasked with enforcing the ceiling laws, rejected the family division. It argued that the family settlement could not be recognized for land ceiling purposes. In 1974, 37 Bigha, 5 Biswa, and 17.8 Biswansi of land were declared surplus under the provisions of the Act.
Legal Proceedings and Appeals:
The legal journey that followed saw various appeals and re-evaluations of the land distribution. The District Judge of Hardoi partly allowed an appeal against the 1974 order, reducing the surplus land to 33 Bigha, 8 Biswansi, and 14.8 Biswansi. However, the District Judge’s decision was heavily influenced by the argument that the family partition, which occurred after the cut-off date of January 24, 1971, should not be taken into account according to Section 5 of the 1960 Act.
The matter continued in courts, with the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the case in 1978, confirming that the family settlement could not be considered for land ceiling purposes. This decision reached its peak with a Special Leave Petition being withdrawn before the Supreme Court, making the judgment final.
The Return to Litigation:
Despite the finality of the earlier rulings, the case resurfaced in 1981 when the son of Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari (respondent No. 1) filed an application under Section 11 of the 1960 Act, claiming that the family members had not been given separate notices as individual landholders. However, this application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority in 1981, a decision that was challenged and subsequently remanded back to the Prescribed Authority.
In 1985, the Prescribed Authority issued a fresh order, taking into account the family settlement, which had been previously rejected, and argued that the family members had not been provided proper notice. This decision was challenged by the State, which eventually led to an appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in Lucknow in 1994. This appeal was allowed, and the earlier decision to declare land surplus was upheld.
The High Court’s Ruling and Its Reversal:
The respondents, however, were not satisfied, and they filed a writ petition before the High Court in 2022, which was allowed. The High Court ruled that since the family had been divided by the partition and each member had an independent share, separate notices should have been given to each tenure holder. The entire process initiated by the Prescribed Authority was deemed invalid, leading the High Court to set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner.
Final Decision:
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which took a firm stance on the case. The Court ruled that the entire case was an abuse of legal processes. It was concluded that after the finality of previous rulings, there was no basis to restart litigation. The Court emphasized that the entire issue had been settled and affirmed in prior legal proceedings, making the new rounds of litigation redundant.
The Court agreed with the Additional Commissioner’s view, which had criticized the Prescribed Authority for revisiting a matter that had already been settled. In its judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and affirmed that the surplus land should be distributed to landless individuals in accordance with the law.
The District Magistrate of Hardoi was directed to take immediate possession of the declared surplus land and ensure its distribution according to the law.
