Lal Chand v. Ram Kishore (SC)
BS198529
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- K.T. Thomas and S.N. Variava, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 6760 of 2001 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 19419 of 2000) D/d.
26.9.2001
Lal Chand - Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishore & Ors. - Respondents
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1960, Section 27 - Lease hold rights - Existence of - Respondents claimed lease-hold right in respect of certain portions of land - Commissioner found that lease claimed were based on bogus and forged entries and infact there was no lease at all - High Court set aside proceedings of Commissioner assuming that there was a lease and same could be set aside only in exercise of powers under Section 27 of the Act - Held, no evidence produced for substantiating that lease claimed was genuine - When there was no lease at all, there was no need to exercise power under Section 27 of the Act - Order of HC interfering with proceedings passed by Commissioner hence, set aside.
[Paras 3, 4 and 5]
ORDER
K.T. Thomas, J. - Leave granted.
2. Appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad as per which the proceedings passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur dated 31.3.1998) and the proceedings passed by the Collector, (Mirzapur pursuant thereto on 10.7.1998) have been set aside.
3. The respondents claimed leasehold rights in respect of certain portions of a land having an extent of 35 bighas 12 biswas of land. Appellant contended that the respondents have no right in any portion of the said land and hence the appellant should be given the right to possess the said land free from any disturbance from the respondents. The Additional Commissioner, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur heard the appellant as well as respondents. He considered the claim made by the respondents that they have leasehold rights in the properties but he entered upon a finding that the lease claimed by the respondents were based on "bogus and forged entries". He, therefore, held that "since there is no existence of the ceiling leases in such situation the question of cancellation of pattas (leases) under Section 27(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 by this Court does not arise at all". Thereupon he directed the Collector to keep the records intact since the entries were found to be forged. The Collector passed the proceedings on 10.7.1998 strictly in adherence to the direction issued to him by Commissioner in the aforesaid order. A reading of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that the learned single Judge was under the impression that the order of the Collector is one of cancelling the lease and that jurisdiction thereof could be exercised only by the Commissioner. The observation made by the learned single Judge in that regard is extracted below:
"Lease under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land. Holdings Act is granted by the S.D.M. of the land which is declared surplus under the Act and the power to cancel the lease lies with the Commissioner. Admittedly in this case Commissioner has not cancelled the lease, as such the impugned order can not be sustained in the eyes of law".
4. When we perused the proceedings passed by the Commissioner dated 31.3.1998 we were fully satisfied that the Commissioner did not uphold the claim of the respondents that there was any lease. He found that the claim was really based on bogus and forged documents or entries and hence concluded that there was no lease at all. The High Court, therefore, fell in clear error in assuming that there was a lease and that could only be set aside, if found legally necessary, by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have been pleading for an opportunity to produce evidence to substantiate that the leases were genuine. He invited our attention to one application filed before the Commissioner on 27.1.1998 requesting an opportunity to lead evidence. We do not know why they did not produce evidence before the Commissioner along with the said application, and why even later on any subsequent date, at least until the Commissioner exercised his jurisdiction on 31.3.1998 they did not produce such evidence, if they had any. In the proceedings adopted by the Commissioner he had noted that several opportunities were granted to the parties concerned for producing records of the alleged leases and that respondents have not availed themselves of any such opportunities.
5. Even when the matter went back to the Collector the respondents did not produce even a sheet of paper for substantiating that the lease claimed by them was genuine. To a query made by us to the learned counsel for the respondents whether any evidence was appended along with the writ petition for showing that the lease was genuine, learned counsel was not in a position to give us a definite answer to that question. In our opinion the High Court had misdirected itself in thinking that there was a lease and that could be set aside only in exercise of the powers under Section 27 of the aforesaid Act. When it was found clearly that there was no lease at all there was no need to exercise power under Section 27 of the Act.
6. In our opinion the High Court should not have interfered with the proceedings passed by the Commissioner on 31.3.1998 or the subsequent order passed by the Collector dated 10.7.1998. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.
.