- (1.) He appeal raises a question of some importance with regard to the effect of Section 38-B, inserted in the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 which had come into force on 10/10/1975.
(2.) Section 38-B reads as below: "38-B.no finding or decision given before the commencement of this section in any proceeding or on any issue (including any order, decree or judgment) by any court, tribunal or authority in respect of any matter governed by this Act, shall bar the retrial of such proceeding or issue under this Act, in accordance with the provisions of this Act as amended from time to time. "
(3.) The need for finding out the effect of the aforesaid section has arisen because, on the proceeding under the aforesaid Act being taken up, the Civil Judge, Jalaun, by an order of 1/5/1975 held that no land of the appellant (Respondent 1 herein) could be declared as surplus. On the proceeding being re-initiated, the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, who is the prescribed authority, determined an area of 31.73 acres of land (in terms of irrigated land) as surplus. On appeal being preferred, the Civil Judge, Jalaun, modified the order of the prescribed authority, as indicated in his order dated 25/7/1977. When a contention was advanced on behalf of the appellants therein (who are respondents herein) that the finding of the previous proceeding operated as res judicata, the learned Civil Judge stated that that judgment having been delivered before 10/10/1975, the same could not operate as res judicata. The respondents approached the High court by filing a petition under Article 226. The view taken by the High court is that the findings operate as res judicata, on the basis of pronouncement dated 21 /9/19799 by a division bench in Krishan Kumar case.;