Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (1) TMI 1004

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of 1995. Challenge in the first writ petition was to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act') and the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: After issuance of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act an area of 17 Bighas 10 Biswas and 2 Biswansis of land of the respondent-Roshan Singh was declared as surplus. Thereafter consolidation operation commenced. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Act were initiated on 28.3.1974 and the respondent-Roshan Singh was granted opportunity to file his response to the notice. The objection was filed on 25.5.1974 and by order dated 14.1.1980 the Prescr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... na Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that as the reduction of area made during the consolidation operation is made for public purposes, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of said reduction. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has got force and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. It is to be noted that the above quoted portion was the only basis on which the writ petition was allowed. Two orders were also allowed following the decision rendered in the first case. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. Firstly, petition under Section 151 was not maintainable when statutorily .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the CPC. Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is alternative remedy and same is accepted to be a well-settled ratio of law. The operative field of power being thus restricted, the same cannot be risen to inherent power. The inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred to it. If there are express provisions covering a particular topic, such power cannot be exercised in that regard. The section confers on the Court power of making such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice of the Court. Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when there is express provision even under which the relief can be claimed by the aggrieved party. The power can only be invoked to supplement the provisions of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd-of-rights, not only the appellants did not take any steps and slept over the matter but various steps as above were taken by the respondents in respect of the land in question. The argument that the proceedings under the ULC Act or the preparation of record-of-rights were ultra vires and the acts without jurisdiction and, therefore, those proceedings would not operate as a bar in appellants invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC by virtue of conferment of such power under Section 57A of the Act is wholly misconceived and misplaced. The inherent powers cannot be used to reopen the settled matters. These powers cannot be resorted to when there are specific provisions of the Act to deal with the situation. It would be an abuse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat power is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. If at the stage of Rule 7 power is vested in the Court and after the decree is passed Order IX Rule 13 becomes applicable and the party can avail himself of that remedy, it is very difficult to appreciate the ends of justice which are supposed to be served by the Courts being held to have the power which the learned Counsel says must inhere in it. In this view it is unnecessary to consider whether to sustain the present submission the respondent must establish that the court was conscious that it lacked specific statutory power and intended to exercise an inherent power that it believed it possessed to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. 11. Looked at from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates