State of U.P. vs Ehteshamuddin Ahmad and Another

R.H. Zaidi, J.—Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30111995, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Moradabad acting as Appellate Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, for short the Act.

It appears that the competent authority vide its order dated 7101985 declared an area measuring 1723.24 Square Metres as excess vacant Land. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal challenging the validity of the order passed by the Competent Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Competent authority, and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 30111995. Thus, as stated above, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 30111995, passed by the Appellate Authority.

The Appellate Authority has referred to and relied upon the decision of Apex Court of the country in the case of Atya Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.R and others (AIR 1993 SC 2465). The Appellate Authority held that the facts of the present case were exactly similar to the facts of the case of Smt. Atiya Mohammadi Begum (supra) and allowed the appeal.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the interpretation of Section 2(b) of the Act given by the Appellate Authority is apparently erroneous and illegal. He has referred to and relied upon the provision of Section 6 of the Act and submitted that the case should have been decided in the light of the provisions of Section 2(O)(C) and Explanation (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Act, which has not been taken into account, and order passed by the Prescribed Authority has been set aside wholly arbitrarily.

Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the facts of the case of Smt. Atiya Mohammadi Begum (Supra) were exactly similar to the facts of the present case, but he has urged that the Second Additional District Judge has committed an error in holding that the land in dispute was the agricultural land and was out of the purview of the Act.

The argument of the learned Standing Counsel in substance was that since the Supreme Court has not taken into account the provision of Explanation (ii) of subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Act, therefore, the decision in Smt. Atiya Mohammadi Begum''s case (supra) was no authority for holding that the land in dispute was an agricultural land and was out of the purview of the Act.

In my opinion, the decision of Supreme Court cannot be ignored on the ground that a particular provision of law or authority was not referred to in it. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision in the case of B.M. Lakhani v. Malkapur Municipality (AIR 1970 SC1002), wherein it was ruled as under:

"The decision was binding on the High Court and the High Court could not ignore it because they thought that relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court:"

The Supreme Court has explained the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution of India in Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab & others, JT 1995(VII) SC 69 as follows:

"Under Article 141, the law declared by it is of a binding character and as command full as the law made by a legislative body or an authorised delegatee of such body. The Court is thus a "competent authority" within the scope of the words above emphasised. On the other hand the majority view expressed in the Full Bench decision that "the Courts of record including the Supreme Court only interpret the law as it stands but do not purport to amend the same. Their Lordship''s decisions declare the existing law but do not enact any fresh law" is not in keeping with the plenary function of the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, for the Court is not merely the interpreter of the law as existing but much beyond that. The Court as a wing of the State is by itself a source of law. The law is what the Court says it is."

In view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, Law declared by the Supreme Court through its decisions should be presumed to be correct and should be followed by All Courts, authorities and tribunals in the country. The appellate authority was, therefore, right in relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Atiya Mohammadi''s case (supra) and in deciding the case in accordance with it.

No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.