Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. versus SHER SINGH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 17 December 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 273 · 1996 INSC 1504
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on August 10, 1984 dismissing Writ Petition No. 2589/82. The admitted position is Ram Het had filed a suit for declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The competent authority prepared the draft statement and issued the notice and after-hearing the objections observed that the declarant was in possession of 1146.0430 sq. mts. of land in excess of the ceiling prescribed. Thereon, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Pending disposal of the appeal, the declarant died. The District Judge remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent authority. Again the competent authority by its order dated August· 17, 1981 determi,ned the excess vacant land as 1146.0430 sq. mts. The respondents again filed an appeal before the Disttict Judge who remitted the matter to the competent authority. Against the remand order, the Government filed writ petition which was dismissed. thus, this appeal. It is contended that the only question that requires to be decided is: whether the legal representatives can claim proportionate shares, after the demise of the declarant? The High Court has given a finding that the appropriate date, on which the entitlement has to be considered, is the date on which the declaration under Section 6 was filed and on that date Ram Het was the . owner and had filed the declaration in his capacity as holder of the vacant urban land. Under these circumstances, after the demise of the declarant, the question would be: whether the legal representatives of the holder of the urban vacant land could claim any deduction on the basis of their interstate or testamentary succession? The crucial date is the date of the declaration filed under Section 6(1) before the competent authority. When the declaration under Section 6(1) was filed, Ram Het was the holder of the urban vacant land and he accordingly filed the declaration. After the demise, the question of intestate or the testamentary succession does not arise. The District Judge, therefore, was not right in remanding the matter again for fresh consideration and computation. Thus, the High Court is not correct .in not interfering with the appellate order though it found that it made a little difference.
pp. 273–274, margin F
Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court stands set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The order of the appellate authority stands quashed and that of the competent authority stands upheld. No costs. T.N.A.. Appeal allowed.
p. 274, margin E