Km Meenak shi Agarwal and ot hers v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot her s

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i )

1. The int ra Court appeal filed by appellant s challenging j udgm ent dat ed 21.02.2014, rendered in Writ Pet it ion No. 963 of 2005 ( MS) , was dism issed by t his Court , vide j udgm ent dat ed 13.08.2025.

2. Appellant s have sought review of t he said j udgm ent by cont ending t hat t heir challenge was t o t he det erm inat ion m ade in para 21 and 26 of t he im pugned j udgm ent dat ed 21.02.2014; however, in t he j udgm ent , it has com e t hat t heir challenge is lim it ed t o t he det erm inat ion m ade in para 29 of t he j udgm ent .

3. I n t he Review Applicat ion, cont ent ions are raised in t he form of paragraphs and separat e grounds of review have not been form ulat ed. Para 3 of Review Applicat ion is ext ract ed below: “ 3. That while passing t he j udgm ent in SPA no. 62/ 2014 t he Hon'ble Court has been pleased t o m ent ion in para no. 2 and 5 of t he j udgm ent t hat t he Senior counsel for t he appellant s had st ressed his argum ent s only on para no. 29 of t he j udgm ent passed by Hon'ble Single Judge. I n fact it 2

was not so. The counsel for t he appellant s had drawn t he at t ent ion of t his Hon'ble Court t hat t he findings of t he Hon'ble Single Judge as m ent ioned in para no. 21 & 26 were not in accordance wit h law, while findings m ent ioned in para no. 29 were in favour of t he appellant s. Therefore t here was no quest ion t o challenge t he findings of para no. 29 of t he j udgm ent . Even from bare perusal of para no. 3 of t he j udgm ent passed by t he Hon'ble Division Bench it is clearly reflect ed t hat t he Senior counsel for t he appellant s had subm it t ed t hat in view of t he provisions cont ained in sect ion 6-A of G.E.T.A Act not only t he " ce i l i n g a r e a " has t o be det erm ined as per t he provisions of UP I m posit ion Ceiling on Land holdings Act 1960 but t he procedure as prescribed in t he " Ce i l i n g A ct " and t he rules fram ed t hereunder has for det erm inat ion, dem arcat ion of ceiling area, separat ion of " su r p l u s a r e a " and t ak ing of possession over " su r p l u s a r e a " et c. Thus it is cryst al clear t hat t he appellant s had challenged t he findings of t he Hon'ble Single Judge as m ent ioned in para no. 21 & 26 of t he j udgm ent .” followed t o be

4. Learned St at e Counsel t akes st rong except ion t o t he ground on which review is sought and he subm it s t hat all t he cont ent ions raised by t he review applicant s were considered and discussed in t he j udgm ent and t he review applicat ion is ill advised. He furt her subm it s t hat appellant s want t o reargue t he m at t er on m erit s, which is not perm issible under review j urisdict ion.

5. Learned St at e Counsel refers t o t he grounds in t he Mem o of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, for subm it t ing t hat none of t he grounds support s t he cont ent ion now raised by review applicant s. He cont ends t hat appellant s have t aken a som ersault for rehearing of t he appeal on m erit s; t herefore, review applicat ion is liable t o be rej ect ed as t here is no error apparent which m ay warrant invocat ion of review power.

6. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned St anding Counsel furt her subm it s t hat even if t he cont ent ion raised by review applicant s is t aken on it s face value, t hen also it does not have any bearing on t he m erit s of t he case as 3 learned Single Judge, in t he j udgm ent under appeal, indicat ed reasons in para 21 and 26 of t he j udgm ent , while conclusion was recorded in para 29.

7. For ready reference, para 21, 26 and 29 of t he j udgm ent , rendered learned Single Judge, challenged in int ra Court appeal, are ext ract ed below: far as t he ceiling area t he calculat ion of “ 21. So concerned, t he provisions of t he 1960 Act ( Ceiling Act ) would apply, but t he proceeding has t o be init iat ed under t he UP Act No. 1 of 1959, as revalidat ed by t he UP Act No. 28 of 1970. The argum ent advanced by t he learned Senior Advocat es in t his r egard is m isconceived. So far as t he st at em ent m ade by t he learned Advocat e General before t he Allahabad High Court is concerned, t hat cannot be said t o be hav ing a binding effect . I f a st at em ent is m ade against t he provisions of law, t hat cannot be said t o be having a binding effect as it is well set t led principle of law t hat , against law, t here is no est oppels. t he

26. The argum ent advanced by learned Senior Advocat es Mr. S.P. Gupt a and Mr. M.L. Verm a t o t he effect t hat t he proceedings would be init iat ed in view of Sect ion 6-A ( quot ed above) under t he 1960 Act , cannot be accept ed for t he sim ple reason t hat t he proceedings have t o be init iat ed under t he UP Act No. 28 of 1970, but so far as t he det erm inat ion of t he ceiling area is concerned, t he sam e shall be governed by t he provisions of t he 1960 Act . The Sect ion is ver y clear. There is no am biguit y in t he language. For t he purpose of calculat ion of t he ceiling area, t he provisions of t he 1960 Act would apply. Ceiling area, which has t o be det erm ined, has been defined in Sect ion 3 of t he UP Act No. 28 of 1970, as has been m ent ioned above, which says t hat t he expression ‘ceiling area’ shall have t he m eaning assigned t o it in t he Ut t ar Pradesh I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960 as am ended from t im e t o t im e. By a conj oined reading of Sect ion 6-A and t he definit ion of ‘ceiling area’, it is very m uch clear t hat t he proceedings would be init iat ed under t he UP Act No. 1 of 1959, as validat ed by UP Act No. 28 of 1970, and t he calculat ion of t he ceiling area would be under t he provisions of t he 1960 Act .

29. The only argum ent advanced by t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioners, which can be said t o be accept able, is t hat 30 acres area has been wrongly m ent ioned in t he not ice and, t herefore, on t his count , t he not ice is not valid. The im pugned not ice issued by t he Collect or, on t his count only, is set aside. Writ Pet it ion No. 962 of 2005 ( MS) and Writ Pet it ion No. 963 of 2005 ( MS) are part ly allowed and t he Collect or, Udham Singh Nagar, is direct ed t o init iat e appropriat e proceedings in accordance wit h law and in view of Sect ion 6-A, quot ed above, for det erm inat ion of 4 t he ceiling area and separat ion of surplus area and t o t ake st eps accordingly against t hose t enure holders, who were recorded at t he t im e of det erm inat ion of lease or t heir successors in int erest ”

8. This Court finds subst ance in t he cont ent ion raised by learned St at e Counsel. None of t he grounds raised by appellant s in Mem o of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, indicat es t hat t hey aggrieved det erm inat ion m ade in para 21 or 26 of t he j udgm ent dat ed 21.02.2014.

9. I n paragraphs 21 and 26 of t he j udgm ent appealed against , cont ent ion raised by writ pet it ioners t hat st at em ent m ade by Advocat e General before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court is binding upon t he St at e, was repelled and it was held t hat st at em ent if m ade by learned St at e Counsel against law does not bind t he St at e as t here can be no est opple against law. I n t he sam e paragraph, it was furt her observed t hat Ceiling Act would apply for calculat ing ceiling area, and t he proceedings would be init iat ed under G.E.T.A Act 1958 ( U.P. Act No. 1 of 1959) , as revalidat ed by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970.

10. I n para 29 of t he j udgm ent , learned Single Judge recorded his conclusion and held t hat since t he not ice m ent ions 30 acres as t he ceiling area, even t hough G.E.T.A. Act , 1958 was am ended by Re- enact m ent and Validat ion Act ( U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970) , t herefore, t he not ice is not valid. Learned Single Judge direct ed t he com pet ent aut horit y t o init iat e proceedings accordance wit h law and in view of Sect ion 6-A of G.E.T.A. Act for det erm inat ion of ceiling area and separat ion of surplus area. 5

11. I t would be wort h m ent ioning t hat proviso t o Sect ion 4( b) of G.E.T.A Act , 1958 prescribed t he ceiling lim it of 30 acres; however, by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1970, Clause ( b) of Sect ion 4 was am ended and proviso t heret o was om it t ed, and a new Sect ion, num bered as Sect ion 6-A, was insert ed, which provided t hat det erm inat ion of ceiling area shall be as per provisions of Ceiling Act , 1960.

12. Learned St at e Counsel is, t herefore, right subm it t ing t hat t he sam e t hread passes t hrough t he aforem ent ioned t hree paragraphs of t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge and para 29 of t he j udgm ent culm inat es t he discussion m ade paragraph No. 21 & 26.

13. Learned St at e Counsel t ook us t o ground ‘G’ raised by appellant s in t he Mem o of t heir Appeal, where appellant s claim ed benefit of U.P. Governm ent Est at es Thekedari Abolit ion Rules, 1960. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel t hat appellant s cannot blow hot and cold at t he sam e t im e and t hey cannot seek benefit of Rules fram ed under G.E.T.A. Act and t hen cont end t hat t he rules fram ed under Ceiling Act alone, would be applicable.

14. Learned Senior Counsel for t he review applicant s concedes t hat t he only quest ion which considerat ion in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014 was whet her t he ent ire proceedings have t o be conduct ed under Ceiling Act , 1960 and t he Rules fram ed t hereunder as claim ed by appellant s or whet her det erm inat ion of ceiling area would be as per Ceiling 6 Act , but t he proceedings would be held as per G.E.T.A. Act and Rules fram ed t hereunder. He furt her concedes t hat t he cont ent ions raised by him during t he course of argum ent in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014, were considered and discussed t he j udgm ent under review.

15. Before learned Single Judge also, sim ilar cont ent ions were raised by t he appellant s and learned Single Judge held t hat Ceiling Act , 1960 would be at t ract ed only for det erm inat ion of ceiling area and rest of t he m at t ers would be dealt wit h by G.E.T.A. Act and t he Rules fram ed t hereunder. This Court affirm ed t he view t aken by learned Single Judge.

16. Thus, t his Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel t hat appellant s are seeking rehearing of t he m at t er by filing Review Applicat ion and out com e would be no different even if what t he review applicant s now allege, is t reat ed as correct .

17. Law is well set t led t hat power of review can be exercised for correct ion of m ist ake, but not t o subst it ut e a view. The review Court does not sit in appeal over it s own order, and re- hearing of t he m at t er is im perm issible. I t const it ut es an except ion t o t he general t hat once a j udgm ent is signed or pronounced, it should not be alt ered. This power is invoked only t o prevent m iscarriage of j ust ice or t o correct grave and palpable errors.

18. Aft er det ailed hearing, we do not find any error apparent on t he face of t he record which m ay warrant invocat ion of review j urisdict ion. 7

19. Thus, Review Applicat ion ( MCC/ 15625/ 2025) is, accordingly, dism issed. No order as t o cost s. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. ____________________________ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 8 t h Sept em ber , 2025 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F , cn=MAHINDER SINGH