Holding

Section 31(3) of the 1976 Amendment Act confers jurisdiction to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine surplus land within two years from 10 October 1975 irrespective of notice under Section 9(2), but the Authority must serve notice to all heirs and afford them a hearing before deciding the matter.

Summary

The appellants, sons of the deceased Wadood Ali Khan, challenged the Uttar Pradesh Prescribed Authority's redetermination of surplus land under the Ceiling Act after the tenure holder's death. The Authority had issued notice only to one son and declared additional land surplus, despite the existence of several other heirs. The appellants argued that the Authority lacked jurisdiction because notice under Section 9(2) was not served to all heirs and that the two‑year period prescribed in Section 31(3) of the 1976 Amendment had expired. The Supreme Court held that Section 31(3) authorises the Authority to initiate redetermination within two years from 10 October 1975 irrespective of notice under Section 9(2), but the Authority must nevertheless give notice to all legal heirs and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before deciding surplus land. Consequently, the Court set aside the Authority’s order and the appellate orders, remanding the matter with directions to serve notice to all heirs and to determine surplus land in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Ceiling Act.

Issues considered

Whether Section 31(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land (Amendment) Act, 1976 authorises the Prescribed Authority to initiate redetermination of surplus land without serving notice under Section 9(2) to all heirs.
Whether the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to determine surplus land when notice was not served to all legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder.
Whether the failure to give the heirs an opportunity of being heard renders the redetermination order void.
Whether the two‑year limitation under Section 31(3) had expired, precluding any further redetermination.
Whether the earlier determination of surplus land operates as res judicata.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land (Amendment) Act, 1976s. 31(3)
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960s. 10, s. 10(2), s. 9(2)

Subjects

Ceiling Actsurplus landredeterminationnoticeheirjurisdictionsection 31(3)Uttar Pradeshland ceilingprocedural fairness

Judgment

MANSOOR ALI KHAN AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 1,1991
•''
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] B
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960/U.P. Imposi-
tion of Ceiling on Land (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 20of1976):

Ss. 9(2). 12131 (3)-Determination of surplus land-Tenure holder
died before notice for initial determination~Redetermination c
-Notice-Whether to be sent to all the heirs-Jurisdiction of Prescribed
Authority-Whether depends on issuance of notice under section 9(2).

The tenure-holder of the land in dispute-father of the
appellants-<lied on 20.8.1974, leaving behind, besides the four ap-
pellants, three other sons, three daughters and a widow as his legal D
heirs and representatives. After his death a notice under s.10 of the
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960,
proposing to declare certain lands as surplus, addressed to him, was
served on his son--eppellant no. 1 who filed objections. The Pre-
scribed Authority partly upheld the objections and by its judgment
dated 29.4.1975 determined some land as surplus. The appellants E
filed an appeal before the Civil Judge.

Meanwhile the Ceiling Act was amended by the Uttar Praduh _
Act 20 of 1976, s. 31 (3) whereof pl'.ovided for redetermination of
surplus lands within two years from 10.10.1975 in cases where or-
ders declaring lands as surplus had been made prior to that date, F
notwithstanding any appeal against the original order of determina-
tion of surplus land. A fresh notice under s. 10 (2) of the Act WA~
issued to appellant no. 1 proposing to declare certain lands as sur7
plus. After considering the appellant's objection the Prescribed Au~
thority by its order dated 22.12.1976 determined some land as sur-
.... plus, holding that the said lands were surplus which were owned by G
the deceased as tenure holder on the appointed day. The appeal
"
against the said order was dismissed by the District Judge.-

In the writ petition preferred by the appellants, the High Court
held that previous determination of surplus lands by the Prescribed
Authority did not operate as res judicata, and that the appellate H

159
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A authority was justified in ignoring the sale deed dated 27.10.1971.
It, however, held that the determination about some plots of lands
· had not been properly made, and remanded the case to the appel-
late authority with the direction to it to issue notice to the other
brothers. of the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the ap-
peal by special leave to this Court.
B
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the proceed-
ing for re-determination of ceiling land could not have been initi-
ated by the Prescribed Authority until notice under s. 9 (2) of the
Act was issued to all the heirs of the deceased tenure bolder; that
since the redetermination proceedings were initiated after Act 20 of
C 1976 was enforced, the redetermination could only be made under
the provisions of the Act as amended by Act 20 of 1976 and in view
of the changes in the Ceiling Act there was no surpJus land liable to
be vested in the State; that as two years had elapsed from the en-
forcement of Act 20 of 1976, no redetermination was permissible
thereafter.
>
D ;.__
Disposing of the appeal and remanding the case to the Pre-
scribed Authority, this Court,
HELD: I.Section 31(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling
on Land. (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 20 of 1976) authorised the
Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus land in relation to
E the tenure bolder if initiated within two years from October 10,
1975. [p. 164 D-E]

In the instant case, the previous determination of ceiling was
made before 10.10.1975. Accordingly, under s. 31(3) of U.P. Act 20
of 1976, the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to initiate the
F said proceedings and such jurisdiction did not depend on issuance
of notice under s. 9 (2) of the Act to the tenure holder and/or his
successors-in-interest. [p. 164 Ei"]

Shantnu Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 1977 Allahabad
Law Reports p. 564, referred to.
G
2. Although the Prescribed Authority bad jurisdiction to ini-
tiate the proceeding for redetermination of surplus land and he had r
...'
hi fact initiated such proceeding within two years as referred to in
s. 31(3) of U.P. Act 20 of 1976, yet, such determination could not
have been made without affording to the heirs and legal representa-
H tives of the tenure bolder an opportunity of being heard and show-
ing cause before the Prescribed Authority. [p. 164 FG]
MANSOORKHAN v. STATE [RAY, J.] 161

The tenure holder had died in 1974 and the said fact was made A
known to the Prescribed Authority when the initial determination
,~f' surplus lands was made. It was unfortunate that in spite of the
1

said fact, the Prescribed Authority failed and neglected to ascertain
the names of all the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased
tenure holder and did not issue notice to them for redetermination
of surplus land. [pp. 164 GH; 165 A] B

3. While the High Court directed to issue notice to other brothers
and remanded the case to the appellate authority, it did not direct
to issue notices to other heirs and legal representatives. Morever,
without giving other heirs and legal representatives an opportunity
of being heard, adjudication of the case on merits by the concerned C
authorities or by the High Court was not warranted. [p. 165 AB)

4. The Prescribed Authority will decide the question of sur-
plus land· in accordance with the existing provisions of the Ceiling
Act applicable on the relevant date, after issuing notices to the heirs
and legal representatives of the tenure holder and giving them a D
reasonable opportunity of being heard. [p. 16S DE]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION_.: Civil Appeal No. 728of1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.1978 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2955of1977. E

Satish Chandra, Ms. Abba Jain, Gaurav Jain and Ghayyute Alam for
the Appellants.

Ashok Kumar Srivastava for the Resi)ondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.N. RAY, J. In this appeal by grant of special leave the appel-
lants, four in number, being sons of late Shri Wadood Ali Khan, have
challenged the legality, validity and propriety of redetermination of ceil-
: ing on lands of the said Wadood Ali Khan under the Uttar Pradesh ImpO- G
sition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter. referred to as
the Ceiling Act). The relevant facts of the case of the app~ll~nts in this
appeal are as follows : -

(a) The appellants are four sons and legal representatives of late Shri
Wadood Ali Khan who had died on 20.8.1974. It is contended H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A that in addition to the appellants the said W adood Ali Khan had
left the other heirs and legal representatives, namely, three
sons-Maskhur Ashud Khan, Mohdud Ali Khan· and ~hkoor
Ali Khan, widow Smt. Firdaus Begum and daughters Shabana ~
Begum, Farzana Begum and Qaiser Jahan Begum.
(b) That after the death ofWadood Ali Khan, the Prescribed Author-
B ity under the Ceiling Act served a notice under Section 10 of the
Ceiling Act proposing to declare lands to the extent of 178-:15-19
bighas of irrigated land as surplus. Such notice under Section 10
was served on appellant No. 1 although the notice was addressed
to the deceased W adood Ali Khan.
(c) Appellant No. 1 filed objections before the Prescribed Authority
c and also participated in the proceedings for determination of
ceiling. Such proceeding was decided by the Prescribed Author-
ity by its Judgment dated 29th April, 1975, inter alia partly
f
upholding objections of the appellant and declaring 87-1-19-19 l
bighas of irrigated lands as surplus and treating the late Wadood •,-
Ali Khan as the tenure holder.
D
(d) The appellants filed an appeal before the learned Civil Judge
against the aforesaid decision of the Prescribed Authority and it ;.
is stated in the appeal petition that such appeal was pending. ;,...
_(e) The Ceiling Act was amended from time to time and in 1976 the
Ceiling Act was further amended by the U.P. Act No. 20 of
E 1976. Such Amending Act received the assent of the President
on 30th April, 1976 and was published in the U.P. Gazette ex-
triwrdinary dated 3rd May, 1976. Various changes in different
Sections of the Ceiling Act were introduced by the said U.P. Act
1976. Section 31 (3) of the said U.P. Act 20of1976 provides as
follows:
F 31.(3) Where an order determining surplus land in relation to a
tenure holder has been made under the principal Act before the
tenth day of October, I 975, the Prescribed Authority (as defined
in the principal Act) may, at any time within a period of two
years from the said date, re-determine the surplus land in accord-
ance with the principal act as amended by this Act, whether or
G not any appeal was filed against such order and not-withstanding
f
i"
any appeal (whether pending or decided) against the original
order of determination of surplus land.
(t) The Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the appellant No. I
on 8th July, 1976 under Section 10(2) of the Act inter alia hol<;i-
H· ing that I 99-1-1 bighas of irrigated lands were proposed to be
MANSOORKHAN v. STATE [RAY, J.] 163

declared surplus. The appellants filed objections to the proposed A
action of redetermination of ceiling by raising various objec-
tions. The Prescribed Authority thereafter disposed of the pro-
ceeding of redetermination of ceiling by order dated 22nd De-
cember, 1976 to the effect that 125-3-8-16 bighas of irrigated
lands belonging to the said Wadood Ali Khan were surplus which
were own.ed by Wadood Ali Khan as tenure holder on the ap- B
pointed day.
(g) The appellants preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge,
Saharanpur, against such order dated 22nd December, 1976, but
such appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District
Judge by Judgment and Order dated 16th May, 1977. The appel-
lants thereafter moved a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High C
Court being Civil Misc. Writ No. 2955/77 which was disposed of
by Order dated 29th November, 1976.
(b) The Writ Petition moved by the appellants were disposed of by
the Allahabad High Court inter alia to the effect that previous
determination of surplus land by the Prescribed Authority did not D
operate as res judicata and the appellate authority was justified
in ignoring the Sale Deed dated October 27, 1971. The High
Court of Allahabad, however, held inter alia that the determina-
tion about some plots of lands had not been properly made.
Accordingly, the case was remanded to the appellate authority
with the direction to the appellate authority to issue notice to the E
other brothers of the appellants.
Mr. Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-
lants, has strongly contended at the hearing of this appeal that such
redetermination could only be made under the provisions of the Act as
amended by U.P. Act No. 20of1976 in view of the fact that the initiation
of the proceedings for redetermination was made after the said Act 20 of F
1976 was enforced. He has also contended that the notice under Section
I 0(2) was deliberately issued to the appellants by ignoring the other heirs
of late Wadood Ali Khan although the concerned Prescribed Authority
was aware that the said Wadood Ali Khan had died in 1974. He had also
contended that the notice under Section I 0(2) was purported to have been
issued under the Amending Act of 1975 although the Amending Act of G
1976 had come into force. Mr. Satish Chandra has also contended that if
the Prescribed Authority had prima facie come to the finding that the
lands indicated in the notice under Section 10(2) were surplus lands, it
was his bounden duty to serve notices on all the heirs of Wadood Ali
Khan and initiation of any proceeding without such notices to all the heirs
was void. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a Full Bench H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A decision of the Allahabad High Court made in the case of Shantnu Kumar
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1977 Allahabad Law Reports p.
564. Mr. Satish Chandra has also contended that service of proper notice
under Section 9(2) of the Ceiling Act on all the heirs of late Wadood Ali
Khan was essential for assuming jurisdiction to redetermine the ceiling
lands. Admittedly, when such notice had not been issued to all the co-
B sharers, no proceeding for redetermination could have been lawfully initi-
ated. Therefore, the adjudication made by the Prescribed Authority and
consequential adjudication by the appellate authority and the Allahabad
High Court must be held to be illegal, void and without jurisdiction. He
has contended that since two years has elapsed from the enforcement of
the said Act 20 of 1976, no fresh redetermination is permissible in law at
C present. He has also contended that the purported initiation of the pro-
ceedings for redetermination of ceiling on lands and order passed by the
Prescribed Authority and the consequential orders passed by the appellate
authority and by the High Court of Allahabad on the Writ Petitions men-
tioned hereinbefore must be quashed.

D. We are, however, not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Satish
Chandra that the proceeding for redetermination of ceiling land could not
have been initiated by the Prescribed Authority until Notice under Section
9(2) was issued by him to all the heirs and he could only assume jurisdic-
tion for initiation of a proceeding for redetennination of ceiling land after
serving such notices to all the heirs of late Wadood Ali Khan. Sect!on 31
E (3) of U.P. Act 20 of 1976, in our view, authorises the Prescribed Author-
ity fo redetermine the surplus land in relation to the tenure holder if
initiated with in two years from October 10, 1975. Admittedly, the previ-
ous determination of ceiling was made before tenth of October, 1975.
Accordingly, under sub-Section (3) of Section 31 of the said U.P. Act 20
of 1976, the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to initiate the said
F proceeding and such jurisdiction did not depend on issuance of notice
under Section 9(2) of the Ceiling Act to the tenure holder and/or the
successors-in-interest of the tenure holder. It, however, appears to us that
although the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to initiate the proceed-
ing for redetermination of surplus land and he had in fact initiated such
proceeding within two years as referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 31
G .of U.P. Act 20 of 1976, such determination. could not have been made
without affording to the heirs and legal representatives of Wadood Ali
Khan an opportunity of being heard and showing cause before the Pre-
scribed Authority. Admittedly, Wadood Ali Khan had died in 1974 and
the .said fact was made known to the Prescribed Authority when the initial
determination of surplus lands was made. It is unfortunate that in spite of
H the said fact, the Prescribed Authority failed and neglected to ascertain the
MANSOOR KHAN v. STATE [RAY, J.] 165

names of all the legal heirs and representatives of Wadood Ali Khan, and A
did not issue notices to such heirs for redetennination of surplus land. The
High Court of Allahabad has directed to issue notice to other broth~rs of
Wadood Ali Khan. The High Court has also remanded the case to the
appellate authority so that other brothers get opportunity to appear and
make submissions. The High Court has, however, not directed to issue
notices to other heirs and legal representatives. Moreover, in our view, B
without giving other heirs and legal representatives an opportunity of
being heard, adjudication of the case on merits by the concerned authori-
ties or by the High Court was not warranted. In the aforesaid facts, we
dispose of this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed
Authority on 22nd December, 1976 and the impugned appellate orders
passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 26th May, 1976 and C
also the impugned decision of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
2955177. Mr. Satish Chandra has contended that in view of subsequent
changes of the Ceiling Act by the Amending Act 20 of 1976, there is no
surplus land liable to be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is not
necessary to express any opinion on such contention of Mr. Satish Chandra
in view of the fact that tlte Prescribed Authority will have to redetennine D
the case of surplus land on the basis of existing provisiOns of the Ceiling ·
Act applicable on the relevant date and the parties will get opportunity to
make appropriate submissions on fact and law. The Prescribed Authority
is directed to issue notices to all the heirs and legal representatives of late
' Wadood Ali Khan including the appellants herein and the other heirs and
legal representatives referred to in this judgment. The Prescribed Author- E
ity will decide the question of surplus land in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Ceiling Act after issuing such notices to the heirs and legal
representatives of late Wadood Ali Khan and giving such heirs and legal
representatives a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In order to avoid
any difficulty and any attempt to delay the disposal of redetennination of
surplus land by the appellants or the other heirs of Wadood Ali Khan, it is F
directed tha_! if there has been any change in the survivorship of legal
representatives of late Wadood Ali Khan or devolution of interest of such
heirs by lapse of time, the appellants should infonn the Prescribed Au-
thority within a month from today the names and other particulars includ-
ing the addresses of all such heirs and legal representatives of late W adood
Ali Khan so that appropriate notices may be issued by the Prescribed G
Authority. If the names and particulars of the legal representatives are not
furnished within a month from today by the appellants tp the Prescribed
A~thority in terms of this direction, liberty is given to the Prescribed
Authority to serve the notices to the appellants and to· the other heirs ·
mentioned in this judgment by sending such notices under the care of the
appellant No. 1, Mansoor Ali Khan, village Kailashpur, Pargana Haraura, H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Tehsil and P.O. Saharanpur, U.P., and it will be deemed that he is repre-
senting the interest of other heirs and legal representatives. The Prescrfued
Authority is directed to dispose of the proceeding for redetermination of
surplus land as early as possible in view of the fact that the matter is
pending determination for long. In the facts of the case, there will be no
order as to corts.

R.P. Appeal disposed of.
.-:..
c

r
(