Ram Swaroop Singh v. State Of U.P Through Collector, Bijnor And Another, Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged the inclusion of land purchased by his major son from his own resources within the petitioner's land holdings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1973. The Prescribed Authority found in favor of the petitioner on this issue, holding that the son's land should not be included in the petitioner's holdings. However, the Learned Commissioner in appeal reversed this finding without detailed reasoning and remanded the matter to the lower court for fresh consideration. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the appellate authority's order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the Prescribed Authority’s findings on the inclusion of the son's land without demonstrating any error or incorrectness in those findings.

Whether an appellate court should remand a matter to the lower court when the entire material on record is available and the appellate court is capable of deciding the matter itself.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The land purchased by the major son from his own resources should not be included in the petitioner's land holdings.

The Prescribed Authority correctly decided the issue in favor of the petitioner.

The appellate authority erred in setting aside the Prescribed Authority’s findings without showing any grounds or incorrectness.

The order of remand passed by the appellate authority was unjustified and contrary to established legal principles.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
M/s Nehru Steel Rolling Mills, Muzaffarnagar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1993 UPTC-407	Remand orders should be passed only for strong reasons when the authority cannot dispose of the matter on merits; remand should not be routine.	The Court cited this case to emphasize that remand orders should not be passed lightly or routinely without strong justification.
M/s Abid Hasan Watch Company, Varanasi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1995 UPTC-1035	Procedural law on remand: appellate court may remand only in specific circumstances; if evidence suffices, it should decide the case itself; remand to fill evidentiary lacunae is not permissible.	The Court relied on this precedent to underscore the limited and exceptional grounds for remand and that appellate courts should decide matters if evidence is sufficient.
Ashwinkumar K. Patel Vs. Upendra J. Patel and others, AIR 1999 SC 1125	High Court should not remand cases merely because it finds some reasoning of the lower court wrong; remands cause delay and prejudice; High Court should decide if material is available.	The Court used this Supreme Court ruling to support the proposition that appellate courts should avoid remand if the material on record permits deciding the matter themselves.
Pushpa Devi and another Vs. Binod Kumar Gupta and another, AIR 2004 SC 1239	If the entire material is available and parties have raised all issues before the appellate court, it should decide the matter and not remand.	The Court cited this case to reinforce that remand should be avoided when the appellate court has full material and issues before it.
M/s S.P. Builders and others Vs. Chairman, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad and others, 2006(8) ADJ 586	The appellate tribunal has jurisdiction co-extensive with the tribunal itself; if material is available, it should decide issues itself rather than remand.	The Court relied on this precedent to affirm that the appellate authority should have decided the matter on merits instead of remanding it.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

M/s Nehru Steel Rolling Mills, Muzaffarnagar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1993 UPTC-407

Remand orders should be passed only for strong reasons when the authority cannot dispose of the matter on merits; remand should not be routine.

The Court cited this case to emphasize that remand orders should not be passed lightly or routinely without strong justification.

M/s Abid Hasan Watch Company, Varanasi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1995 UPTC-1035

Procedural law on remand: appellate court may remand only in specific circumstances; if evidence suffices, it should decide the case itself; remand to fill evidentiary lacunae is not permissible.

The Court relied on this precedent to underscore the limited and exceptional grounds for remand and that appellate courts should decide matters if evidence is sufficient.

Ashwinkumar K. Patel Vs. Upendra J. Patel and others, AIR 1999 SC 1125

High Court should not remand cases merely because it finds some reasoning of the lower court wrong; remands cause delay and prejudice; High Court should decide if material is available.

The Court used this Supreme Court ruling to support the proposition that appellate courts should avoid remand if the material on record permits deciding the matter themselves.

Pushpa Devi and another Vs. Binod Kumar Gupta and another, AIR 2004 SC 1239

If the entire material is available and parties have raised all issues before the appellate court, it should decide the matter and not remand.

The Court cited this case to reinforce that remand should be avoided when the appellate court has full material and issues before it.

M/s S.P. Builders and others Vs. Chairman, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad and others, 2006(8) ADJ 586

The appellate tribunal has jurisdiction co-extensive with the tribunal itself; if material is available, it should decide issues itself rather than remand.

The Court relied on this precedent to affirm that the appellate authority should have decided the matter on merits instead of remanding it.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the impugned appellate order and found that it was passed without any demonstration or discussion of how the Prescribed Authority’s findings were incorrect. The Court emphasized the legal principle that an appellate authority must provide reasons when setting aside a lower court’s order, and cannot simply declare findings incorrect without explanation. The Court referred to established precedents which caution against routine remand orders, especially when the appellate authority has the material to decide the case on merits. The Court noted that remand orders are justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as absence of trial or lack of material. Since the entire record was available and the appellate authority did not point out any defect in the findings, the order of remand was held to be unlawful and unsustainable.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is allowed. The appellate authority’s order dated 17.2.1993 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration and passing of order in accordance with law.

The direct effect is to restore the status of the Prescribed Authority’s findings until reconsidered lawfully by the Commissioner. No new precedent is established by this decision; it reinforces existing principles restricting the use of remand orders by appellate authorities.

Ram Swaroop Singh v. State Of U.P Through Collector, Bijnor And Another

Sudhir Agarwal, J.;-

1. Heard Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is contended that the land purchased by major son of the petitioner from his own resources could not have been included in the land of the petitioner. When he received the notice under Section 10(2) read with Section 29 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1973, he raised his objection whereupon the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding while considering Issue Nos. 5 & 6, that the land purchased by Pritam Singh, son of the petitioner from his own resources cannot be included in the holdings of Ram Swaroop Singh and the issues were decided in favour of the petitioner.

3. Learned Commissioner in appeal held the findings recorded by Prescribed Authority on Issues 5 & 6 incorrect and that court below has not taken decision on merits on the said issue and on this ground he remanded back the matter to the court below to decide afresh on merits after hearing both the parties. However while holding the findings it has not shown how the findings are incorrect.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner. The appellate authority has committed illegality in setting aside the judgement and order of the Prescribed Authority without referring to any incorrectness in the findings in respect of Issues 5 & 6.

5. Before holding an order or part of order to be incorrect it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to discuss and demonstrate as to how it found the order in appeal incorrect or vitiated on one or other ground. The mere observation that finding recorded by court below is incorrect makes the order unreasoned and non speaking and such an order cannot sustain. An order of reman ought not to have been passed in routine course but the appellate court must consider the matter with more seriousness and unless and until it finds that order of court below cannot be sustained at all then after demonstrating and discussing the matter it ought to have passed an order. When the entire material on record is available the appellate court ought not to have remanded the matter but should have decided on its own. An order of remand normally passed when something not evident from record has to be seen.

6. This Court in M/s Nehru Steel Rolling Mills, Muzaffarnagar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1993 UPTC-407 (Hon'ble M. Katju, J. as His Lordship then was) while considering the correctness of an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal remanding the matter to Deputy Commissioner observed as under :

"In my opinion a remand order should not be readily made, and it should only be made when for very strong reasons the authority cannot itself dispose of the matter on merits. It seems that these remand orders were made by the authorities merely to get rid of the case so that the authority could avoid going into the matter deeply and deciding the issue once and for all. This kind of attitude is to be deprecated."

7. Again in M/s Abid Hasan Watch Company, Varanasi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1995 UPTC-1035, this Court observed in paras 8, 9 and 10 as under :

"(8) The procedural law regarding remand may be stated. It is this that Appeal Court may remand a case if it has been decided on a preliminary point and said judgment of lower court is set aside in appeal by the Appeal Court. It may again send the case to lower court with directions in case it is necessary in the interest of justice. Another contingency is where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary, the Appellate Court can remand the case to decide specific issue or issues. The Appellate Court may also frame issue or issues for determination after remand. In such a case additional evidence may also be directed to be taken. Otherwise the evidence already on record will again be read.

(9) If, however, the evidence on record is sufficient to enable to Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit.

(10) I would now deal with a few situations where remand or a prayer for it should be frowned upon. It is in exceptional cases that remand may be ordered, like when there has been no real trial. Mere insufficiency of evidence is no ground for allowing a party to adduce further evidence on remand. If there is insufficiency of evidence for any party to prove his case, he will suffer. Remand with a view to enable a party to fill up lacuna in evidence is not permissible. In protracted litigation the remand should not be resorted to on the ground that final curtain should be drawn."

8. The question has also been considered by the Apex Court in a catena of cases and it will be useful to refer some recent judgments. In Ashwinkumar K. Patel Vs. Upendra J. Patel and others, AIR 1999 SC 1125, the Apex Court held that even the High Court should not remand a case under Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C. to lower Court merely if some reasoning of the lower Court is wrong, since it leads to unnecessary delay and cause prejudice to the parties. If the material is available, the High Court should decide the matter itself since it can consider all the aspects. The relevant observations as contained in para-7 is reproduced as under :

"In out view, the High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under Order 41, Rule 23, C.P.C. to the lower Court merely because it considered that the reasoning of the lower Court in some respects was wrong. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the parties to the case. When the material was available before the High Court, it should have itself decided the appeal one way or other. It could have considered the various aspects of the case mentioned in the order of the trial Court and considered whether the order of the trial Court ought to be confirmed or reversed or modified."

9. Recently, in Pushpa Devi and another Vs. Binod Kumar Gupta and another, AIR 2004 SC 1239 it was held if the entire material is available and the parties have raised all issues before the Appellate Court, it should not remand the matter but decide on its own.

10. In M/s S.P. Builders and others Vs. Chairman, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad and others, 2006(8) ADJ 586 this Court while considering when an order of remand can be passed, has said:

". . . . . the Appellate Tribunal is not a body of limited jurisdiction. It exercise power co-extensive with the Tribunal itself. In these circumstances, if there was no want of any relevant material, if the Tribunal has not discussed some issues properly, it was open to the Appellate Tribunal to consider itself all such issues and to decide the matter but, that, by itself, cannot be a reason to remand the matter to the Tribunal."

11. In view of above exposition of law and discussion with respect to order impugned in this writ petition, in my view, the impugned order cannot sustain.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.2.1993 passed by appellate authority is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for considering and passing fresh order in accordance with law.

C.M.W.P No. 12756 of 1993

Ram Swaroop Singh v. State Of U.P Through Collector, Bijnor And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ram Swaroop Singh v. State Of U.P Through Collector, Bijnor And Another

Comments