Baban Paswan v. Pratima Devi, (SC) BS130248
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5478 of 2000. D/d. 27.9.2000.

Baban Paswan and another - Appellants

Versus

Pratima Devi and others - Respondents

Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, Paras 7 and 10 - Allottee's right to be heard in surplus area proceedings of landowner - Being in enjoyment of land on the strength of allotment, allottee must have right to substantiate that allotment has been rightly made and area rightfully held to be surplus area - Allottee should be heard before any final order is passed - Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Areas Scheme, Paras 6, 9 and 2(b).

[Paras 5 and 6]

ORDER

K.T. Thomas, J. - Leave granted.

2. There was determination of the ceiling area in respect of the family of Prabal Pratap Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh and it was then worked out that 43.26 acres was excess land. The present respondent No. 1 Pratima Devi being the sister of the aforesaid two persons raised some dispute stating that she was not heard in the matter. In the meanwhile the surplus land was distributed to different persons and the present appellants came into possession of some areas of that surplus land pursuant to the allotment made in their favour in 1985. Thereafter Prabal Pratap Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid determination of the excess land and also the distribution in favour of the appellants. Though the appellants were made parties in the said writ petition, the High Court ultimately dismissed their writ petition and the LPA filed by those two persons was withdrawn subsequently.

3. Thereafter the present 1st respondent Pratima Devi filed CWJC No. 323 of 1999 before the High Court contending that she was not heard and she was vitally interested in the matter before determining the ceiling area applicable to the family of Pratima Devi, Prabal Pratap Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh (who are respondents No. 1, 7 and 8 respectively in this appeal). But unfortunately in that writ petition the present appellants were not made parties though it is a fact that on the date when the writ petition was filed the portion of the land was in the lawful possession of the appellants. That writ petition was allowed by the High Court by ordering certain areas claimed by the 1st respondent to be excluded from the ceiling limit of the aforesaid two persons (Prabal Pratap Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh). When, the appellants came to know about the said verdict of the High Court in the writ petition they filed LPA by obtaining permission. But the LPA was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court with the following observations :

4. Now the appellants have come up to this Court by special leave in challenge of the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.

5. We are not inclined to take the view that the appellants are not entitled to be heard in the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent Pratima Devi merely because the determination of the ceiling area had taken place at a time when the appellants had no right in the land. The appellants have been put in possession of the land way back in 1985 by holding that it was a surplus area pertaining to the family. They being in the enjoyment of the land on the strength of the said allotment, they must have the right to substantiate that the allotment has been rightly made in their favour and the area was rightfully held to be surplus area.

6. In view of the said situation we hold that the appellants should also have been made a party in the writ petition and they also should have been heard before any final order is passed in the writ petition. We, therefore, set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 323 of 1999 and also the impugned judgment in the LPA. The case now will go back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition afresh. We permit the appellants to make an application in the writ petition to get themselves impleaded as respondents and contest the claim made therein. If any such application is filed the same shall be allowed.

7. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Appeal accepted.