Court’s Decision:
The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to file an application under Section 11(2) of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioners challenged the impugned order that declared their purchased land as surplus, without issuing a show cause notice. The court observed that the appropriate remedy lies in moving an application before the Prescribed Authority within 30 days from the date of the impugned order.
Facts:
The petitioners had purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed in 2006-07 from one of the respondents to the ceiling proceedings. The petitioners have been in possession and cultivation of the said land since then. Subsequently, proceedings under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were initiated, and the land was declared surplus under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1960.
Issues:
- Whether the impugned order declaring the land as surplus could be sustained when the petitioners were not issued a show cause notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners contended that they were never issued a show cause notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960, before the impugned order declaring their land as surplus was passed. This non-issuance of notice infringed upon their rights as lawful purchasers of the land. They argued that the land purchased by them should not have been included in the determination of surplus land.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State Counsel raised a preliminary objection, arguing that instead of approaching the High Court, the petitioners should have filed an application under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960, to the Prescribed Authority within 30 days of the impugned order. This was the proper remedy as per the statutory scheme, and without availing this remedy, the writ petition was premature.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the provisions of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, specifically Section 10(2), which mandates the issuance of a show cause notice before the determination of surplus land, and Section 11(2), which provides a remedy to set aside such orders if a sufficient cause is shown within 30 days. The court emphasized that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to the statutory principles established under land ceiling laws, highlighting that non-compliance with procedural safeguards such as issuing a show cause notice could vitiate the proceedings. However, the court reiterated the necessity of following statutory remedies first.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court reasoned that the petitioners’ grievance regarding the non-issuance of a show cause notice could be effectively addressed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960. The availability of an alternative remedy necessitated that the petitioners approach the Prescribed Authority first.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to move an application under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960, within the prescribed period of 30 days. The court clarified that if such an application is filed, the Prescribed Authority shall entertain and decide it as per law.
Implications:
The ruling underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. It also highlights that procedural safeguards such as issuing show cause notices must be adhered to in land ceiling proceedings to protect the rights of landholders. The decision serves as a reminder to authorities to strictly comply with the legal procedure before declaring land as surplus.
