STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus SURESH CHANDRA TEWARI & ORS.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 708, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 708 : 2024 INSC 989
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
v.
Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No. 14603 of 2024) 
17 December 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issues arose as regards the declaration of land to be surplus when 
there was a family settlement regarding the said land, whereby 
each family member had a separate share duly demarcated and 
thus could not be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one 
tenure holder; and whether a fresh litigation could be allowed when 
the issue attained finality in the first round of litigation. 
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
Act, 1960 – ss.5, 9 and 10 – Imposition of ceiling – Declaration 
of land to be surplus – Case of the respondent-son of the main 
recorded land owner that there has been a family settlement 
between the parties way back in the year 1967 whereby shares 
of all the family members have already been determined, 
thus, cannot be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one 
tenure holder-respondent’s father and as such land cannot 
be declared as surplus – However, the Prescribed Authority 
held that family settlement could not be relied, and passed 
order declaring some part of land as surplus – District judge 
reduced the surplus land holding that in the view of explanation 
1 to s.5(7), since the suit was instituted after the cut-off date 
24.01.71, it would be deemed that no partition took place – 
Upon
remand, the land declared surplus by the Prescribed 
Authority – Said order upheld by the High Court and Special 
Leave Petition thereagainst dismissed as withdrawn – Orders 
attaining finality in first round of litigation – However, the 
respondent moved application before the Prescribed Authority 
claiming that they were joint holders of land and were not 
given separate notice, and order of the Prescribed Authority 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
709
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors.
be re-called – Prescribed Authority again issued notice to all 
the respondents – However, the Additional Commissioner 
held that once the matter had been settled and had attained 
finality, it should not have been raked up again – Writ petition 
by the respondent – Allowed by the High Court holding that 
since after the family partition, separate notice was not given 
to each of the tenure holder,the entire procedure initiated by 
the Prescribed Authority vitiated and set aside the order of 
the Additional Commissioner – Correctness: 
Held: Respondent’s attempt to re-open the matter is nothing short 
of abuse of process – Once the entire objection regarding the family 
settlement rejected not only by all the authorities, but also by the 
High Court and then by this Court, no occasion for starting a fresh 
round of litigation which were nothing less than an abuse of the 
process of law, apart from being barred by Res Judicata – In order 
of the Additional Commissioner, stringent comment made on the 
Prescribed Authority, that this decision by the sub-ordinate court 
also raises question on the integrity of the Prescribed Authority” – 
Views of the Additional Commissioner that the entire mischief 
has been done by the Prescribed Authority, who should not have 
interfered in this matter, is accepted – However, it is too late in 
the day to issue a notice for an order passed in the year 1985
by the Prescribed Authority, though this is indeed a case where 
a departmental enquiry should have been instituted against the 
concerned officer – Order of the High Court set aside – District 
Magistrate directed to immediately take possession of the surplus 
land as declared surplus and let the same be distributed to the 
landless or in accordance with law. [Paras 8-12]
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; 
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) 
Act, 1972.
List of Keywords
Declaration of land to be surplus; Family settlement; Separate 
share of family member duly demarcated; Holding of only one 
tenure holder; Fresh litigation; First round of litigation; Prescribed 
Authority; Additional Commissioner; Abuse of the process of law;
710
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Res Judicata; Land reform; Redistribution of surplus land; Partition 
before cut-off date; Suit instituted after cut-off date; Deemed not 
to be partition; No notice to joint holders.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14603 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WRITC No. 3000001 
of 1995
Appearances for Parties
Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Advs. for 
the Appellants.
Satpal Singh, Ms. Netasha Thukral, Govinda Chaudhary, 
V. S. Dubey, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
Vide The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
Act, 1960 in the State of Uttar Pradesh the land over and above 
a certain limit was to be declared surplus and was then to vest 
with the State. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings Act, 1960 as well as the earlier Uttar Pradesh Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were enacted in the State 
of U.P. immediately after the independence of the Country with this 
purpose. We must not forget that one of the main commitments of 
the leaders during the freedom struggle was that the wide disparity 
and inequality in distribution of land will be changed for the better 
and abolition of Zamindari and placing a ceiling on land, would be 
a step towards this goal towards
the redistribution of land, based 
on the principles of equity and justice. Since land was in List II i.e., 
the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of 
India, these legislations regarding land reforms were to be made
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
711
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors.
by the States, and this was done not just in U.P. but throughout 
the country.
Consequently, different States brought about the legislations in their 
Sates, all aimed at land reforms and redistribution of land where 
one of the principal elements was putting a surplus on the land 
holding, the declaration of the surplus land and redistribution of this 
surplus land to those who were landless and marginalised farmers. 
The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1960’) and the purpose of its 
enactment has to be seen in this context. 
3.	
Out of the various provisions in the 1960 Act, Section 9 and Section 10 
are important here for our purposes, which are as under :-
“9. General notice to tenure-holders holding land in excess 
of ceiling area for submission of statement in respect 
thereof-
— [(1)] As soon as may be, after the date of 
enforcement of this Act, the Prescribed Authority 
shall, by general notice, published in the Official 
Gazette, call upon every tenure-holder holding 
land in excess of the ceiling area applicable 
to him on the date of enforcement of this act, 
to submit to him within 30 days of the date of 
publication of the notice, a statement in respect 
of all his holdings in such form and giving such 
particulars as may be prescribed. The statement 
shall also indicate the plot or plots for which he
claims exemption and also those which he would 
like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable 
to him under the provisions of this Act.]
[(2) As soon as may be after the enforcement 
of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on 
Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972, the 
prescribed authority shall, by like general notice, 
call upon every tenure-holder holding land in 
excess of the ceiling area applicable to him on 
the enforcement of the said Act, to submit to him 
within 50 days of publication of such notice, a 
statement referred to in sub-section (1).
712
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
[Provided that at any time after October 10, 
1975, the Prescribed Authority may, by notice, 
call upon any tenure-holder holding land in 
excess of the ceiling area applicable to him 
on the said date, to submit to him within thirty 
days from the date of service of such notice a 
statement referred to in sub-section (1) or any 
information pertaining thereto.]
[(2-A) Every tenure-holder holding land in excess 
of the ceiling area on January 24, 1971, or at 
any time thereafter who has not submitted the 
statement referred to in sub-section (2) and in 
respect of whom no proceedings under this act 
is pending on October 10, 1975 shall, within 
thirty days from the said date furnish to the 
Prescribed Authority a statement containing 
particulars of all land -
(a) held by him and the members of his family 
on January 24, 1971 ;
(b) acquired or disposed of by him or by 
members of his family between January 24, 
1971 and October 10, 1975. ]
(3) Where the tenure-holder’s wife holds any 
land which is liable to be aggregated with the 
land held by the tenure-holder for purposes of 
determination of the ceiling area, the tenure-holder 
shall, along with his statement referred to in sub-
section (1), also file the consent of his wife to the 
choice in respect of the plot or plots which they 
would like to retain as part of the ceiling area 
applicable to them and where his wife’s consent 
is not so obtained, the prescribed authority
shall 
cause the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 
10 to be served on her separately.]
10. Notice to tenure holders failing to submit a statement 
or submitting an incomplete or incorrect statement -
(1) In every case where a tenure-holder fails to 
submit a statement or submits an incomplete
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
713
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors.
or incorrect statement, required to be submitted 
under Section 9, the Prescribed Authority shall, 
after making such enquiry as he may consider 
necessary either by himself or by any person 
subordinate to him, cause to be prepared a 
statement containing such particulars as may 
be prescribed. The statement shall in particular 
indicate the land, if any, exempted under 
2[Section 6] and the plot --- proposed to be 
declared as surplus land.
(2) the Prescribed Authority shall thereupon cause 
to be served upon every such tenure-holder
in such manner as may be prescribed, a notice 
together with a copy of the statement prepared 
under sub-section (1) calling upon him to show 
cause within a period specified in the notice, 
why the statement be not taken as correct. The 
period specified shall not be less than ten days 
from the date of service of the notice”
Since the respondents did not submit a statement in terms of 
Section 9, the Prescribed Authority prepared a statement taking 
into consideration the entire land of the tenure holder and then a 
notice was issued under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 to the main 
recorded land owner i.e., Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari on 16.03.1974 
by the Prescribed Authority as to why from his large land holding a 
portion be not declared as surplus. Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari 
(father of the present respondent no.1) filed his objections wherein 
he
stated that there has been a family settlement which was arrived 
at between the parties way back in the year 1967 and according to 
this family settlement, shares of all the family members have already 
been determined. Moreover, this settlement has also been reduced 
to writing way back in the year 1969 and in the year 1970 one of the 
sons of Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari had also instituted a suit in 
the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in respect of non-agricultural 
properties, which were also then included in the memorandum of 
family settlement. The said suit was decreed on 02.11.1970 and on 
the basis of family settlement and memorandum dated 09.11.1969, 
the land has been divided and share of each family member is 
demarcated. A suit was also filed on 30.01.1971 for permanent
714
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
injunction for restraining Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari (father of the 
respondent no.1) from interfering in the agricultural lands on the basis 
of the family settlement. The suit was decreed on 09.08.1971. In 
other words, what was projected through family settlement and court 
cases was that now each family member has a separate share duly 
demarcated and therefore all of this cannot be clubbed and taken 
as the holding of only one tenure holder i.e. Hari Shankar Tiwari for 
the purpose of declaration of surplus land. 
The Prescribed Authority, however, after hearing all the objections 
came to the conclusion that the family settlement cannot be relied 
upon and passed an order in the year 1974 declaring 37 Bigha 
5 Biswa and 17.8 Biswansi on Late Hari Shankar Tiwari (father 
of the respondent no.1) as surplus under the provisions of the 
Act of 1960. 
4.	
Against the said order of the year 1974, an appeal was filed by Late 
Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari before the District Judge Hardoi, which was 
partly allowed by reducing the surplus land of late Hari Shankar Tiwari 
to 33 bigha 8 biswa and 14.8 biswansi and the file was sent back to 
the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 24.09.1975. What weighed 
in with the District Judge, Hardoi was the fact that even though the 
land had been partitioned vide a Decree dated 09.08.1971 passed 
by the Ld. Munsiff, Hardoi, the partition was liable to be ignored and 
not taken into account
for the purposes of imposition of ceiling in 
view of Explanation I to sub-section 7 of Section 5 of the 1960 Act, 
which reads as under:
[5. Imposition of ceiling- (1) On and from the commencement 
of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
(Amendment) Act, 1972, no tenure-holder shall be entitled 
to hold in the aggregate, throughout Uttar Pradesh, any 
land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him.
………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
(7) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-
holder, any partition of land made after the twenty-fourth 
day of January, 1971 which but for the partition would 
have been declared surplus land under this Act shall be 
ignored and not taken into account:
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
715
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to
(a) [ * * * * ]
(b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding 
pending on the said date :
Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained 
in the preceding proviso, the prescribed authority, if it is 
of opinion that by collusion between the tenure-holder 
and any other party to the partition, such other party has 
been given a share which he was no entitled to, or a larger 
share than he was entitled to, may ignore such partition.
[Explanation I- If a suit is instituted after the said date 
for declaration that a partition of land has taken place 
on or before the said date, then such declaration shall 
be ignored and not be taken into account, and it shall 
be deemed that no partition has taken place on or 
before the said date.]
(emphasis provided)
The institution of the Suit by Late Hari Shankar Tiwari was on 
30.01.1971 i.e. after the cut-off date of 24.01.1971. This would mean 
that in spite of the decree dated 09.08.1971, it is to be deemed that 
no partition took place at all, in terms of sub-section (7) of Section 5, 
read with the proviso and the explanation. 
Upon remand, again by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the 
land was declared as surplus. Against the declaration of this surplus 
land, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad, which was dismissed by the
High Court on 07.08.1978. 
The High Court reiterated the finding of the District Judge that since 
the partition suit was instituted after the cut-off date of 24.01.1971, 
the decree dated 09.08.1971 is liable to be ignored. Against the 
judgment of the High Court, the father of the respondent no.1 Late 
Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari preferred a Special Leave Petition before 
this Court which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. In other 
words, in the first round of litigation the respondents had lost from 
all courts including this Court (albeit by withdrawal of petition), and 
thus claim based on family settlement, etc. stood rejected, and these 
orders had attained a finality.
716
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari (father of the respondent no.1) in fact 
gave his option on 23.07.1981 before the Prescribed Authority which 
was accepted by the Prescribed Authority and 33 Biswa 8 Bigha and 
14.8 Biswansi was declared as a surplus area out of plot no.1353.
5.	
Meanwhile, not satisfied with the dismissal of the case right up to 
the Apex Court, an innovative ploy was devised, which is nothing 
short of an abuse of the process and has thus reached now to 
this Court. The present respondent no.1 (son of Late Hari Shankar 
Tiwari) moved an application on 23.04.1981 under Section 11 of the 
Act of 1960 stating that they were joint holders of the land and they 
were not given any notice by the Prescribed Authority. It was said 
that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in 1974 should be 
recalled, however, this objection of the respondent no.1 was rejected 
by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 14.09.1981. The 
said order dated 14.09.1981 was challenged by the respondent no.1 
in an Appeal which was pending before the IVth Additional District 
Judge Hardoi and vide order dated 16.11.1981 the IVth Additional 
District Judge Hardoi accepted the appeal and set aside the order 
of the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter back to the 
Prescribed Authority. 
6.	
Now on this remand, the Prescribed Authority again issued a notice 
under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 to all the respondents and
therefore, passed an order dated 23.09.1985 holding that prior to 
cut off date, entire land shown in the notice belonged to Late Shri 
Hari Shankar Tiwari which had been partitioned through a private 
party settlement reduced to writing and through this family settlement 
the entire joint family, agricultural and non-agricultural land and 
property was divided by metes and bounds and since then each 
of the members of the erstwhile joint family have got their share 
separated, they ought to have been given a separate notice, which 
has not been given, as each of them were in exclusive possession 
of the property. 
7.	
Against the above order of the Prescribed Authority, the State filed 
an Appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 1960 before the District 
Judge, Hardoi and due to the subsequent amendment in the Act 
of 1960, the Appeal was transferred to the Court of Additional 
Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow for decision in 
Appeal. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division,
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
717
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors.
Lucknow passed an order on 18.10.1994 holding that once the 
matter had been settled and had attained finality, it should not have 
been raked up again. The entire case of the respondents rests on a 
family settlement which has been disbelieved in the earlier round of 
litigation. This finding as we know was upheld right up to Supreme 
Court, or at least till the High Court, as we have seen the petition 
was withdrawn in the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation. In 
other words, the matter had attained finality. No benefit ought to have 
been given of this family settlement and therefore the appeal of the 
State was allowed. The order of the Prescribed Authority declaring 
the land to be surplus was upheld. Against this Order, respondent 
filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which has been allowed 
vide impugned order dated 21.02.2022 on the ground that after the 
family partition separate notice ought to have been given to each 
of the tenure holder and since it has not been given, the entire 
procedure initiated by the Prescribed Authority are vitiated and the 
High Court thus has set aside the order dated 18.10.1994 of the 
Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 
8.	
According to us, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not 
appreciated either the position of law or the facts in the case as were 
required. Once the entire objection of
Late Shri Hari Shankar Tiwari 
regarding the family settlement, etc. were rejected not only by all 
the authorities,but also by the High Court and then ultimately by this 
Court, where the Special Leave Petition itself was withdrawn, there 
was absolutely no occasion for starting a fresh round of litigation 
which were nothing less than a ruse and an abuse of the process 
of law, apart from being barred by Res Judicata. 
9.	
We are not surprised therefore that the order of the Additional 
Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in its order 
dated 18.10.1994 while allowing the appeal of the State had made 
a stringent comment on the Prescribed Authority, who ought not to 
have passed an order on 23.09.1985. The Additional Commissioner 
(Judicial) in his order has said that “this decision by the sub-ordinate 
court also raises question on the integrity of the learned Prescribed 
Authority”. 
10.	 In fact, we totally agree with the views of the Additional Commissioner 
that the entire mischief has been done by the Prescribed Authority in 
this matter, who should not have interfered in this matter. Now it is
718
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
too late in the day to issue a notice for an order which was passed 
in the year 1985 by the Prescribed Authority, though this is indeed 
a case where a departmental enquiry should have been instituted 
against the concerned officer.
11.	 Be that as it may, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High 
Court dated 21.02.2022 is set aside. 
12.	 The District Magistrate, Hardoi is directed to immediately take 
possession of the surplus land as declared surplus (33 Biswa 8 Bigha 
and 14.8 Biswansi) and let the same be distributed to the landless 
or in accordance with law and process which is now to be followed 
in such cases. 
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain