Holding

A writ order cannot be passed without impleading the parties whose interests are directly affected; therefore, the High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration with the appellants impleaded.

Summary

The respondents filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging orders issued under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The Allahabad High Court allowed the petition in a summary, cryptic order, relying on a 1986 order of the Prescribed Authority that pertained only to other individuals and not to the appellants, Prem Kumar and others. The appellants argued that they were not impleaded as parties despite the High Court’s decision affecting their interests. The Supreme Court held that a writ order cannot be passed without impleading parties whose rights are directly affected and noted the absence of any reference to the effect of the 1986 order on the appellants. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration with the appellants to be impleaded as parties.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can pass a writ order without impleading parties whose interests are directly affected under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the 1986 order of the Prescribed Authority, which did not affect the appellants, can be the basis for quashing later orders affecting them.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 226

Subjects

Article 226implementation of partynatural justiceU.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Actwrit jurisdictionprocedural fairnessremand

Judgment

A PREM KUMAR AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

MAY 7, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Non-impleadment of party- ....
Respondents, without impleading the Appellants, filed writ petition-High
Court disposed of the same summarily in a cryptic manner-On facts, .held,
c without impleading Appellants as parties, the impugned order of High Court
could not have been passed-Matter remitted !o High Court for fresh
consideration-Appellants directed to be impieaded as parties in the
proceedings-UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, I 960-s. I 0(2).

D In the present appeal, the primary contention is that the Respondents,
without impleading the Appellants, filed a writ petition and without any detailed
discussion, the High Court allowed the same relying on a 1986 order passed
by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960, which did not have any effect so far as the Appellants
were concerned and related to three other persons.
E
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily and
rather in a cryptic manner. There is no reference in its order as to the effect
of the order dated 21.3.1986. That being so, without impleading the appellants
F as parties the impugned order could not have been passed. Therefore, the
impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to A_

it for fresh consideration. The appellants shall be impleaded as parties in the
proceedings. [Paras 7 and 10) (103-G-H; 104-F-G)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2392 of2007.
G
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2003 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43437 of 2002.
\--
Rakesh Dwivedi and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants.

H 102
PREMKUMARv. STATEOFU.P. (PASAYAT,J.] 103
S.R. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Nitin Bhardwaj and Mirdula A
Ray Bharadwaj for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
,,_
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Leave granted.
B
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the
respondents.

3. Primary stand in this appeal is that the respondents, without impleading
the present appellants, filed a writ petition and without any detailed discussion, C
the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying on an order dated
21.3.1986 passed by the prescribed authority which did not have any effect
so far as the present appellants are concerned.

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
D
5. A notice was issued under Section 10(2) ofU.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the 'Act'). The said notice was issued
to Bhairo Prasad, Jagannath Prasad and Ram Prasad and by order dated
13.2.1979 certain lands were declared to be surplus. An appeal was preferred
against the said order. The learned District Judge, Allahabad by order dated E
3.2.1981 remanded the matter and the prescribed authority was directed to
decide the effect of sale deeds executed by Jagannath, Bhairo Prasad, Madho
Prasad and Smt. Ganga Devi. The Prescribed Authority decided the matter by
an order dated 21.3.1986 and declared about 107 bighas ofland of Jagannath,
Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi as surplus. There was no challenge to this
order. F
·"' 6. The challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 11.12.1995
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad
whereby the appeal filed against the orders dated 31.1.1994 and 23.9.1995 was
dismissed.
G
7. The High Court disposed of the writ petition summarily and rather in
a cryptic manner with the following observations:

"Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when by the
aforesaid order C:ated 21.3 .1986 the Prescribed Authority decided the
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A matter and declared an area of 107 bighas as surplus and this order
has become final as no appeal against the same was filed, only an area
of I 07 'Jighas could have been taken by the State and, therefore, the
impugned orders dated 25.9.2002 and 30.3.2002 are not sustainable.

The submission made by the learned counsel has got force. The
B writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The impugned orders
dated 30.3.2002 and 25.9.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority and
the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad
respectively are quashed. It is held that the petitioners have got an
area of I07 bighas as surplus land, possession of which, if not taken
earlier, may be taken by the State within a period of 2 months from
c the date of filing of certified copy of this order."

8. The appellants who were not parties before the High Court pursuant
to the permission granted have filed this appeal. According to them the order
dated 21.3.1986 related to Jagannath, Madho Prasad and Ganga Devi and had
nothing to do so far as the present appellants are concerned. In fact the
D Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer in order dated 31.1.1994 has clearly
observed that the dispute did not relate to Ram Prasad and Bhairo Prasad.
In the order of the Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer it was clearly
noted in the orders dated 23.9.1995 and 31.1.1994 that the orders did not have
any relevance so far as the appellants are concerned.
E 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in an earlier writ
petition i.e. 11749 of 1995 and 13584 of 1996 certain directions had been given
which have relevance.

10. We find that there is no reference in the impugned order of the High
F Court as to the effect of the order dated 21.3.1986 on the lands of Bhairo
Prasad and Ram Prasad are concerned. That being so, without impleading the
appellants as parties the impugned order could not have been passed. We,
therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter
to it for fresh consideration. The present appellants shall be impleaded as
parties in the proceedings. They are granted 8 weeks time to file the counter
G affidavit, if any. The High Court shall, if deemed necessary, grant time to the
writ petitioners to file further affidavit. The State ofU.P. may also file counter
affidavit, if so advised.
11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to
costs.
H B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.