Onkar Singh … v. Addl. Commissioner And Others

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under :- "(i) That this Hon'ble Court having gone through the facts and circumstances and legal aspect of the matter in controversy may be pleased enough to issue a writ order in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 27.4.1996, passed by the opposite party No.1, annexed with this writ petition as Annexure No.4 to meet the ends of justice. (ii) that this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to pass a commanding order to the appellate court that the learned appellate court having observed the earlier order dated 27.5.1985 the final order in appeal according to that may be passed. 2 WRIT – C No. - 3000049 of 1996 (iii) ..."

3. The present controversy pertains to Gata No.30 admeasuring 5.38 acres and Gata No.28 admeasuring 1.37 acres situated in village Puran Purwa, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Nighasan, District Kheri. These lands were originally recorded in the name of opposite party no.3, the erstwhile tenure-holder.

4. In proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by Act No. 18 of 1973, the aforesaid land was proposed to be declared surplus from the holding of opposite party no.3. The prescribed authority by order dated 31.12.1964 declared the said land surplus. According to the petitioner, this order was passed without issuance of notice to him, despite his long possession and acquisition of rights over the property.

5. The petitioner asserts that he had perfected Bhumidhari rights by adverse possession in respect of the disputed land under Section 10 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951. Upon learning that the land had been declared surplus, he filed an objection under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act, seeking exclusion of the disputed land from the surplus pool and recognition of his Bhumidhari rights.

6. The prescribed authority, after hearing both sides, passed its order on 9.4.1985, whereby it accepted the petitioner’s claim to exclude the land from the surplus area but only recognized him as a Sirdar of the disputed land instead of as Bhumidhar.

7. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 31 of 1985 before the learned District Judge, Kheri. The State of U.P. contested the appeal but did not prefer any cross-objection against the relief granted by the prescribed authority.

8. By order dated 27.5.1985, the learned District Judge allowed the petitioner’s appeal, holding that under the Amending Act of 1976, all tenants having the status of Sirdar were converted into Bhumidhar, and therefore the petitioner was entitled to Bhumidhari rights. Accordingly, 3 WRIT – C No. - 3000049 of 1996 the order of the prescribed authority dated 9.4.1985 was modified, and the petitioner was declared Bhumidhar of the disputed land.

9. The State of U.P., aggrieved by the appellate order dated

27.5.1985, preferred Writ Petition No.6270 of 1986 (State of U.P. v. Onkar Singh) before the High Court, which remains pending adjudication.

10. Meanwhile, notwithstanding its participation in Appeal No.31 of 1985, the State of U.P. on 31.10.1985 filed a fresh appeal before the appellate authority against the original order dated 9.4.1985 passed by the prescribed authority. This was done without disclosing the fact that Appeal No. 31 of 1985 had already been decided on 27.5.1985 and that a writ petition against that order was already pending before the High Court.

11. The said fresh appeal by the State was ex facie barred by limitation. An application for condonation of delay was moved, in which, according to the petitioner, false facts were narrated to justify the belated filing. The petitioner strongly objected to its maintainability, urging that the second appeal was hit by res-judicata and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

12. Despite the objections, the appellate authority (opposite party no.1) proceeded to entertain the appeal. By its order dated 27.4.1996, the

appeal was disposed of on merits, thereby re-opening issues which had already been finally adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985 and which were sub-judice before the High Court in Writ Petition No.6270 of 1986.

13. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appellate order dated 27.4.1996 on grounds of jurisdictional error, res- judicata, limitation, and violation of principles of natural justice.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

15. The appellate court disposed of the appeal, thereby re-opening the issues which had already been adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985 and 4 WRIT – C No. - 3000049 of 1996 which were sub-judice before the High Court in Writ Petition No.6270 of 1986 concealing the material fact that Appeal No.31 of 1985 had already been decided on 27.5.1985 and that a writ petition against that order was already pending before the High Court. Due to suppression of material fact, the appellant obtained an order in appeal. The appellate authority proceeded to entertain the appeal and by order dated 27.4.1996 the appeal was disposed of on merit, thereby re-opening issues which had already been adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985 against which Writ Petition No.6270 of 1986 was lying pending consideration. Due to non disclosure of the appellate order dated 27.5.1985 and pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the order dated 27.4.1996 suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside.

16. The appeal filed by the State was ex-facie barred by limitation. An application for condonation of delay was moved, in which, according to the petitioner, false facts were narrated to justify the belated filing. The petitioner strongly objected to its maintainability, urging that the second appeal was hit by res-judicata and amounted to an abuse of the process of law, in spite of that, the appellate authority (respondent No.1) proceeded to entertain the appeal and decided it vide order dated

27.4.1996, thereby re-opening issues which had already been adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985. Accordingly, the order is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside.

17. The fact in regard to filing of Appeal No.31 of 1985 decided vide order dated 27.5.1985 was concealed by the appellant in filing the fresh appeal, therefore, it is abuse of process of law and the appellant was not entitled to get relief by the appellate court, thus, the order dated

27.4.1996 is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside.

18. The order dated 27.4.1996 is illegal on the grounds of jurisdictional error, res-judicata, limitation, and violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

19. The District Judge allowed the petitioner’s appeal, holding that under the Amending Act of 1976, all tenants having the status of Sirdar 5 WRIT – C No. - 3000049 of 1996 were converted into Bhumidhar, and therefore the petitioner was entitled to Bhumidhari rights. Accordingly, the order of the prescribed authority dated 9.4.1985 was modified to that extent and the petitioner was declared Bhumidhar of the disputed land.

20. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and reasons recorded above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 27.4.1996, passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) is quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. As per the order of the appellate court in Appeal No.31 of 1985, the rights decided as Bhumidar, shall be maintained. (Irshad Ali,J.) November 6, 2025 Gautam GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

appeal was disposed of on merits, thereby re-opening issues which had already been finally adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985 and which were sub-judice before the High Court in Writ Petition No.6270 of 1986.

13. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appellate order dated 27.4.1996 on grounds of jurisdictional error, res- judicata, limitation, and violation of principles of natural justice.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

15. The appellate court disposed of the appeal, thereby re-opening the issues which had already been adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985 and 4 WRIT – C No. - 3000049 of 1996 which were sub-judice before the High Court in Writ Petition No.6270 of 1986 concealing the material fact that Appeal No.31 of 1985 had already been decided on 27.5.1985 and that a writ petition against that order was already pending before the High Court. Due to suppression of material fact, the appellant obtained an order in appeal. The appellate authority proceeded to entertain the appeal and by order dated 27.4.1996 the appeal was disposed of on merit, thereby re-opening issues which had already been adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985 against which Writ Petition No.6270 of 1986 was lying pending consideration. Due to non disclosure of the appellate order dated 27.5.1985 and pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the order dated 27.4.1996 suffers from apparent illegality and is liable to be set aside.

16. The appeal filed by the State was ex-facie barred by limitation. An application for condonation of delay was moved, in which, according to the petitioner, false facts were narrated to justify the belated filing. The petitioner strongly objected to its maintainability, urging that the second appeal was hit by res-judicata and amounted to an abuse of the process of law, in spite of that, the appellate authority (respondent No.1) proceeded to entertain the appeal and decided it vide order dated

27.4.1996, thereby re-opening issues which had already been adjudicated in Appeal No.31 of 1985. Accordingly, the order is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside.

17. The fact in regard to filing of Appeal No.31 of 1985 decided vide order dated 27.5.1985 was concealed by the appellant in filing the fresh appeal, therefore, it is abuse of process of law and the appellant was not entitled to get relief by the appellate court, thus, the order dated

27.4.1996 is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside.

18. The order dated 27.4.1996 is illegal on the grounds of jurisdictional error, res-judicata, limitation, and violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

19. The District Judge allowed the petitioner’s appeal, holding that under the Amending Act of 1976, all tenants having the status of Sirdar 5 WRIT – C No. - 3000049 of 1996 were converted into Bhumidhar, and therefore the petitioner was entitled to Bhumidhari rights. Accordingly, the order of the prescribed authority dated 9.4.1985 was modified to that extent and the petitioner was declared Bhumidhar of the disputed land.

20. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and reasons recorded above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 27.4.1996, passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) is quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. As per the order of the appellate court in Appeal No.31 of 1985, the rights decided as Bhumidar, shall be maintained. (Irshad Ali,J.) November 6, 2025 Gautam GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench