ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Hearing in this case was concluded earlier, where after this case was adjourned for further hearing, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.10.2016, which reads as under:- "Petitioners, in the instant petition, claim to be landless labourers, and were consequently allotted land, which had been declared ceiling surplus, at the hands of tenure holder Shiv Kumar i.e. father of respondent no.4. Grievance raised in the writ petition is that although nearly 40 years have lapsed, since declaration of land as ceiling surplus and allotment of land in favour of the petitioners in 1978, but possession of such land is yet to be delivered to the petitioners. In this context, following prayer has been made in the writ petition: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to deliver the possession of the petitioners plot bearing plot no. 52M area 1.268 Hectare, Plot No. 52M area 1.265 Hectare, Plot No. 52M area 1.265 Hectare, 52M area 1.265 Hectare, Plot No. 41 area 1.303 Hectare, Plot No. 44, 45, 11M area 1.265 Hectare and plot No. 49M area 1.265 Hectare situated in village Chak Mangraula, Pargana and Tashil Dadri, District Ghaziabad to the petitioners expeditiously within a time bound period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court." Petitioners contend that orders declaring land as ceiling surplus at the hands of father of respondent no. 4, as well as his other elder brothers, have attained finality upto the Apex Court with dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19819 of 2012, decided on 1.4.2013. Respondent No.4, however, asserts that he was not a party to all such litigation, and is not bound by it. In such circumstances, following orders were passed in the matter on 17.8.2016: "It is stated that petitioners were allotted land, which had been declared as ceiling surplus at the hands of respondent no.4 and his family members. According to petitioners, such ceiling proceedings travelled upto the Apex Court and have attained finality. Grievance of the petitioners is that though valid patta was executed in their favour, but possession thereof is being denied on account of disputes raised by the private respondents. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submits that respondent no.4 was not a party to the earlier proceedings and even otherwise, the land of village Chak Bangraula situates in the State of Haryana, and as such, it could not have been taken into consideration for the purposes of declaring ceiling surplus land at the hands of respondent no.4. It is contended that even otherwise, respondent no.4 was never extended choice to indicate as to which land is to be surrendered, particularly as the dispute continued to remain pending right upto the year 2013. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the state authorities, in such circumstances, is directed to obtain specific instructions on the issues, noticed above. It shall also be inquired as to whether any valid patta has been executed in favour of the petitioners or not in respect of the land in question. Put up as fresh once again on 26.8.2016." Hearing in the matter continued on several dates, as it would be clear from the order sheet, and Sri Manish Goel appearing for respondent no.4 was heard at the considerable length. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent no.4 was confronted with the scope of petition, and it was pointed out that arguments proposed to be advanced beyond the scope of proceedings would not be entertained. Arguments, accordingly, were concluded, and judgement in the matter was reserved. Leave was granted to the parties to file their written arguments, and date was fixed for delivery of orders. Learned counsel counsel for respondent no.4 in his written statement, at the very outset, states as under: "The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to deliver the possession of the plots mentioned in the prayer situated in Village Chak Mangraula, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad within a time bound period. There is no other prayer made in the writ petition and on account of the fact that no prayer was made in the writ petition, the arguments of the parties were confined only on the issue relating to possession by the Hon'ble Court. Parties were not permitted to argue upon the rights of the respondent no. 4 and also not to address the Hon'ble Court on the merits of the proceedings that were going on before the revenue authorities of which reference has been made in the writ petition." Learned counsel, on the scope of written submissions, has again stated as under at page 17: F: Scope of Present Written Submissions: With utmost humility and respect, it is submitted that since the issue was confined by the Hon'ble Court to be addressed only on possession and not with respect to the ceiling proceedings or with respect to the right and interest left in the answering respondent, the answering respondent is not making written submissions in this regard and is reserving right to submit written submissions if the Hon'ble Court considers it expedient and proper to be heard on such issue for which the answering respondent craves leave to the Hon'ble Court to be granted opportunity of oral submission followed by written submissions. As such, the answering respondent is confining scope of the present written submission only on the issue of possession and not with respect to the validity or otherwise of the ceiling proceedings and right flowing or vesting in the answering respondent thereto." Having gone through the written statements filed by the learned counsel for respondent no.4, it seems that learned counsel for respondent no.4 feels constrained by the scope of arguments allowed in the matter to him, and prayer for grant of further hearing has been made. It is cardinal principle of law that justice should not only be done, but seems to have been done. Scope of argument necessarily has to be confined to the prayers made in the writ petition, but a counsel must not feel deprived of opportunity to make submissions. In order to do justice between the parties, let this matter appear once again in the additional cause list on 26th October, 2016 at 3:00 pm for further hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 shall be at liberty to advance his argument on any other aspect, as he intends to make on behalf of respondent no.4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 would also have liberty to file further written argument in the matter by 27th October, 2016, so that proceedings be concluded by then."
(2.) Hearing could not be concluded on the date fixed i.e. 26.10.2016. Change of roster intervened. This matter thereafter has been nominated to this Court for hearing by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 19.4.2017. The writ petition has consequently been placed again before this Court. Arguments were heard on 16.5.2017 and following orders were passed:- "Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nipun Singh, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goel, Advocate, assisted by Sri D.K. Dwivedi appearing for the respondent no.4. Arguments are advanced by Sri Manish Goel on the aspect of right of respondent no.4 over the property in question in the context of declaration by the State of land being surplus at the hands of tenure holder, who happened to be the father of respondent no.4. It is contended by Sri Goel that certain part of the property had gone to the State of Haryana in 1975, and therefore, it could not have been included for the purposes of determination of surplus land at the hands of the tenure holder and this aspect of the matter has not been considered. It is, however, contended on behalf of the petitioner that all such questions and objections were available to the tenure holder and whether actually raised or not, would be treated to have been considered and rejected in view of the principles of constructing res judicata. It is also pointed out that respondent no.4 being a minor at the time when ceiling proceedings came into being was not covered by the definition of tenure holder, and therefore, at his instance such proceedings cannot be objected to now. Sri Manish Goel seeks indulgence to rely upon certain decisions in that regard. Put up tomorrow i.e. on 17.5.2017, as first case in the additional cause list."
(3.) Sri Manish Goyal, assisted by Sri D.K. Dwivedi, appearing for the respondent no.4 has been heard in continuation, on the aspects noticed above. A short note of submissions as well as a compilation of judgments has been filed, which is taken on record.;