Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17
PETITIONER:
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS. .
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/2000
BENCH:
D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.Ahamad
JUDGMENT:
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.
The dispute, which pertained to Plot Nos. 1366, 1367
and 1368 (old) situate in Village Maliyana, District Meerut,
was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut, in favour
of the appellant by his judgment and order dated 19.4.1969.
An appeal filed against that decision was dismissed by the
Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Meerut, by judgment
dated 25.11.1969 and the Revision filed under Section 48 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the above
judgment by respondent Dewa Ram, who is now represented by
respondents 2 to 5, was dismissed on the ground that the
certified copy of the judgment passed by the Settlement
Officer (Consolidation), as required by Rule 111(1) of the
Rules made under the Act, had not been filed with the memo
of revision. But the High Court, in a writ petition which
was thereafter filed by Dewa Ram, set aside the judgment
passed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation), on 1.11.1973
and remanded the case to the Deputy Director (Consolidation)
for a fresh decision on merits. After remand, the Deputy
Director (Consolidation), by judgment dated 31.3.1975,
reversed the earlier judgments passed by the Consolidation
Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and held
that Dewa Ram, in whose favour a lease of the above plots
was executed by the Land Management Committee, had become
"Sirdar" of those plots and his name may be recorded as such
in the Revenue records. A writ petition filed thereafter by
the appellant in the Allahabad High Court was dismissed by
the impugned judgment dated 28.7.1989.
On the commencement of the proceedings under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, Dewa Ram, predecessor-in-
interest of respondents 2 to 5, who shall hereinafter be
referred to as respondent, filed objections claiming
"Sirdari" rights over the plots referred to above on the
basis of a lease executed in his favour on 18.4.1966 by the
Chairman, Land Management Committee, who was also the
Pradhan of the village. Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mills, which
has since been taken over by the appellant, also filed
objections claiming Sirdari rights over those plots over
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17
which there existed their storage tank for molasses and a
tank for sullage water. These structures, namely, the
storage tank for molasses and the tank for sullage water
were said to exist since the time of Messrs Indira Sugar
Works which was established in the year 1932-33 by one Seth
Inder Sain who, after taking permission of the then
Zamindars, had constructed molasses tank and also a tank for
storage of sullage water and dumping of waste material,
while a portion of the aforesaid plots was used as land
appurtenant to staff quarters of the Sugar Mill. The plots
were surrounded on all sides by the other land of the Sugar
Mill. Seth Inder Sain transferred the Mill to Messrs
Jaswant Sugar Mill and thereafter, as pointed out above, it
was taken over by the appellant which is a Govt. owned
Corporation and the plots in question are in their
possession since then. On the basis of these facts, it was
pleaded before the Consolidation Officer that since the
plots were being used for storage of molasses and sullage
water and also as appurtenant land for better enjoyment of
the other property of the Mill, they never vested in the
State on the abolition of "Zamindari" by the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
The objections of the Mill were allowed by the
Consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation), but were rejected by the Deputy Director
(Consolidation) and the High Court.
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the
lease executed in favour of respondent by the Chairman, Land
Management Committee, on the basis of which "Sirdari" rights
were claimed by him, was wholly fictitious as it was found
as a fact by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement
Officer (Consolidation) that the Chairman of the Land
Management Committee was a close relation of the respondent
who was also not an agricultural labourer nor had he any
source of cultivation. It was also found that respondent
was not in possession over any portion of the land in
dispute. These plots were found by the Consolidation
Officer, on a local inspection, to contain the storage tank
for molasses. It was also found that the plots were
appurtenant to the building of Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mill and
its residential colony (staff colony) and that the Mill was
in possession throughout. Consequently, the Mill was held
entitled to the benefit of Section 7 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act. These findings, it is
contended, which remained undisturbed, were sufficient for
the claim of the respondent being rejected by the
Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) and the Deputy Director (Consolidation) and
the High Court were wholly in error in interfering with
those decisions. It is also contended that the decision of
the High Court that the validity of the lease-deed could not
be legally examined by the Consolidation Authorities, was
wholly erroneous.
Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the
contrary, contended that it having been found as a fact that
the Chairman, Land Management Committee, had executed a
lease of the plots in question in favour of the respondent
under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, it was not within the competence of the
Consolidation Authorities to have looked into the validity
of that lease and they ought to have proceeded to record the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17
name of the respondent in the Revenue records as "Sirdar" on
the basis of that lease-deed.
The Consolidation Officer had disposed of the
objections filed by the respondent as also by the appellant
with the following findings :
"The lease deed in question in favour of plaintiff
Dewa Ram is proved by collusive and illegal on more than one
ground first the allegation of the other party that said
leases Dewa Ram is close relation of Pradhan Het Ram stands
proved by the Statement of Dewa Ram and Pradhan Het Ram
themsleves as both have given evasive answers on the facts
of their relationship such as Dewa Ram even could not tell
the name of his grand father and brother of his father.
Similarly Pradhan has even tried to conceal the name of
father of Dewa Ram. Further the interest shown by the
Pradhan Shri Het Ram in support of the claim of Dewa Ram
itself raises strong presumption in favour of this
allegation of alleged close relationship. Further Dewa Ram
admittedly has got as source of cultivation. Not only this
he is not even agricultural labourer. Further the Patta is
dated 16.4.1966 and the receipt of deposit of ten times is
dated 2.7.67. This is also strong proof of the fact that
the transaction has been done afterwards simply to legalise
the patta. This also shows clear collusion of the Pradhan
with said Dewa Ram. Thirdly the original Gram Samaj agenda
book summoned in the court shows that name of the plots in
dispute are in different ink. Lastly, the lessee Dewa Ram
is not at all prove to be in possession over the land in
dispute. What is very important in this case is that as
revealed by my spot inspection also plot No. 1366, 1367 and
1368 were found to be in was partly for storing Sheera by
Jaswant Sugar Mills and partly for throwing sullage water
and spent wash of the adjacent factory for which several
drains exists on spot as shown in the spot memo also. Not
only this in plot No. 1366 a pucca well built tank for
storing sheera exist which seems to be quite old. The plots
thus can hardly be said to be vacant land and cannot be
utilised for agricultural purpose and lessee Deva Ram can
hardly be expected to carry on cultivation over this land.
In fact the land has got special commercial value and the
Pradhan in collusion with Dewa Ram has executed this
leasedeed simply to gain this property. This as discussed
above the lease deed in favour of Dewa Ram is not entitled
to get his name mutated on the basis of lease deed in
question."
Further findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer
are as follows :
"But Jaswant Sugar Mills was entered to be in
possession since before Zamindari abolition. Thus no doubt
the land of disputed plot Nos. 1366, 1367, 1368 are proved
to be area appurtenant to the building of Jaswasnt Sugar
Mills and its residential colony and is in possession and
was of the Mill for the purposes of storing of sheera,
sullage water, refuse etc. as mentioned above. But since
not cultivatory possession of the Mill is proved over land
in dispute no sirdari rights accrues to the Mill over the
land in dispute. The objectors Jaswant Sugar Mills thus can
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17
at best claim rights u/s 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and Protection
of Sec. 7(1) of the said Act which protects the rights of
Bhumidharis and Sirdaris is continue to enjoy the easement
or any similar rights for the more beneficial enjoyment of
the land as he was enjoying on the dates immediately
preceding the date of vesting."
These findings were affirmed by the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) by his judgment dated 25.11.1969. The
Settlement Officer (Consolidation) recorded the following
findings:
"I find that the lease executed in his favour was not
legal and according to rules. As is clear from the evidence
on record and as has also been held by the learned C.O. the
Chairman of the L.M.C. was his relation and the lease
executed in his favour was collusive one, there is no
evidence on record to establish that the appellant is a
landless person and the claim of other landless persons of
the village were considered by the village Pradhan and
L.M.C. Besides the alleged lease deed is dated 16.4.1966
while the receipt for payment of ten times rent produced by
the appellant is dated 2.7.67. This appears to be a
manipulation and also collusion with the village Pradhan.
The appellant has also not been able to establish his
possession over these plots and there is no satisfactory
evidence to prove the same. The learned C.O. has made a
spot inspection and his inspection memo dated 8.12.1968 is
on file. He too had not found the appellant to be in
cultivatory possession of these plots which were in was by
others for other than agricultural purposes. Thus the
appellant Deva Ram could not be mutated as Sirdar of the
disputed land on the basis of illegal, and collusive lease
executed in his favour and his claim has been rightly
rejected by the C.O. his appeal has no force and is liable
to be dismissed."
These findings have not been disturbed by the Deputy
Director (Consolidation) who decided the Revision on
31.3.1975 with the finding that the lease executed in favour
of the respondent under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act was valid, inasmuch as a notice
issued under Section 198(2) of that Act by the Sub-
Divisional Officer was subsequently withdrawn and the
proceedings for cancellation of lease initiated on the basis
of that notice were also withdrawn. He also recorded a
finding that the possession over the land in dispute was all
along with the respondent. For this purpose, he relied upon
an interim order passed by the High Court in the earlier
writ petition to the effect that the possession of the
respondent would not be disturbed.
The reasoning of the Deputy Director (Consolidation)
on both the questions is, to say the least, ridiculous. The
mere fact that a notice under Section 198(2) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was issued for
cancellation of the lease-deed executed in favour of
respondent and the proceedings initiated on the basis of
that notice were subsequently withdrawn, would not mean that
the lease was valid specially when the Consolidation Officer
and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) both had held
that the land which contained a storage tank for molasses
and another for sullage water and other purposes, was in the
possession of the Sugar Mill. Proceedings initiated under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17
Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act for cancellation of the lease in favour of the
respondent were initiated and withdrawn without there being
any notice ever issued to the Sugar Mill. The Deputy
Director (Consolidation) did not advert himself to the vital
facts that the land contained the storage tanks for molasses
and sullage water and other purposes connected with the
sugar industry nor did he consider that the plots were the
land appurtenant to the staff quarters of the Mill. The
benefit of Section 7 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, which was extended by the Consolidation Officer
was also not adverted to by the Deputy Director
(Consolidation). The finding on the question of possession
was recorded by the Deputy Director in favour of the
respondent because of the interim order passed by the High
Court in the first writ petition in which the only question
raised by the respondent was that his Revision filed before
the Deputy Director (Consolidation) could not have been
dismissed merely on the ground that the certified copy of
the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) was not annexed with the memo of Revision.
It was on this question that the High Court had remanded the
matter to the Deputy Director (Consolidation) for
consideration of the Revision on merits. Thus, the question
of possession was not in issue before the High Court and the
High Court was not required to record a finding whether
respondent or the appellant was in possession over the plots
in question. In the circumstances, the reliance placed by
the Deputy Director on the interim order passed by the High
Court in that petition for recording a finding that
respondent was in possession over those plots, was wholly
out of place.
The High Court before which the judgment of the Deputy
Director was assailed, went a step further and on and
incorrect interpretation of Section 209 and 210 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act held that the Sugar
Mill would not get "Sirdari" rights over the Gaon Sabha
property. Now, in the particular circumstances of the case,
neither Section 209 nor did Section 210 apply.
Section 209, as it stood at the relevant time, is
reproduced below.
"S.209- Ejectment of persons occupying land without
title-
(1) A person taking or retaining possession of land
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law
for the time being in force, and-
(a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a
bhumidhar, sirdar or asami without the consent of such
bhumidhar, sirdar or asami,
(b) where the land does not form part of the holding
of a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami without the consent of the
Gaon Sabha
shall be liable to ejectment on the suit, in cases
referred to in clause (a) above, of the bhumidhar, sirdar or
asami concerned; and in cases referred to in clause (b)
above of the Gaon Samaj and shall also be liable to pay
damages.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17
(2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in
clause (a) of subsection (1) the State Government shall be
impleaded as a necessary party."
Section 210 as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws Reforms
and Amendment Act, 1976 (Act No. LVII of 1976), is quoted
below:
"210. Consequences of failure to file suit under
Section 209.- If a suit for eviction from any land under
section 209 is not instituted by a bhumidhar or asami, or a
decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not
executed within the period of limitation provided for
institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as
the case may be, the person taking or retaining possession
shall -
(a) where the land forms part of the holding of a
bhumidhar with transferable rights, become a bhumidhar with
transferable rights of such land and the right, title and
interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be
extinguished; (b) where the land forms part of the holding
of a bhumidhar with non- transferable rights, become a
bhumidhar with non- transferable rights and the right, title
and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be
extinguished;
(c) where the land forms part of the holding of an
asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an asami of the
holding from year to year.
Provided that the consequences mentioned in clauses
(a) to (c) shall not ensue in respect of any land held by a
bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Tribe." .lm10
The reasoning of the High Court appears to be that the
land, on the commencement of the consolidation operations,
was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha and therefore, it
was the property of the Gaon Sabha. Even if the Mill was in
possession over the land of the Gaon Sabha for more than
twelve years, it would not get "Sirdari" rights. Section
209, which has been extracted above, provides that a person
taking or retaining possession over any land in accordance
with the provisions of the law for the time being in force
shall be liable to be evicted from that land on the suit of
a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, as the case may be, if the
land pertains to such bhumidhar, sirdar or asami and the
possession was taken or retained without the consent of such
bhumidhar, sirdar or asami. If the land pertained to Gaon
Sabha, then the person taking or retaining possession over
the land would be liable to be evicted therefrom on the suit
of the Gaon Sabha.
Consequences of not filing a suit under Section 209
have been indicated in Section 210. Clause (iii) of Section
210 as it originally stood (prior to amendment in 1976)
provided that if the suit was not filed within the period of
limitation, then such person would become Sirdar of the land
in question as if he had been admitted to the possession of
that land by the Gaon Sabha. Since this clause does not
form part of Section 210 as introduced by Amendment in 1976,
the High Court was of the opinion that the Mill, as a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17
consequence of the Gaon Sabha not filing a suit for the
eviction of the Mill within the period of limitation, would
not become Sirdar of the land in question and, therefore,
its objections filed before the Consolidation Officer for
Sirdari rights were liable to be rejected.
Section 209 and 210 both pre-suppose that the land
over which possession was taken or retained by a third
person belonged to a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami or, for that
matter, to the Gaon Sabha and it is at the instance of such
bhumidhar, sirdar or asami or the Gaon Sabha that such
person who has taken or retained possession belonging to
them would be evicted therefrom.
Before coming to that question, it would be better to
consider the background in which the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enacted which will also
reveal the purpose for which it was made and the
significance of "Gaon Sabha" as a governing unit in the
rural areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The history is
given in the Eastern Book Company Publication of Mr. S.M.
Husain’s Commentary on the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, a part of which is reproduced below:-
"The State of Uttar Pradesh was previously known as
the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh i.e. a composite
province consisting of the province of Agra and the province
of Oudh. Although since the introduction of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act they had a uniform system of revenue law, but
the law of Tenancy till the introduction of the U.P.
Tenancy Act XVII of 1939 was absolutely different.
The province of Agra was previously known as the
North-Western Province, being a part of the Presidency of
Fort William, and was governed by the Bengal Regulations.
The Regulations specially applicable to the North-Western
Province were subsequently published under the authority of
the Government of India in the form of North-Western
Province Code. These Regulations were primarily meant for
the collection of revenue and had nothing for the benefit of
the tenants. It was in the year 1859 that the Rent Recovery
Act X of 1859 was introduced, which, in a way, recognised
the rights of subordinate tenure-holders. Thereafter the
Agra Tenancy Act of 1901, to a certain extent, defined the
rights of the tenants; but it still left the door open to
arbitrary ejectment and afforded no adequate protection to
the tenants from enhancement of rent and wasteful litigation
by unscruplous landlords. It was generally felt that the
law required drastic changes, but due to the intervention of
the war nothing could be done till the year 1926.
The Province of Avadh, previous to its annexation by
the East India Company, was governed by the Kings of Avadh.
They had different systems of collecting revenue, and
collected it through mustajiri, or by appointment of Nazims,
Chakladars or other collecting officials. The immediate
holders of the soil had no substantive rights, and were at
the mercy of these rent collectors. In anticipation of the
annexation of the province Lord Dalhousie the Governor-
General of India wrote to General Outram, the Resident of
Avadh, to do away with the landholders or Taluqdars as a
class and make a summary settlement direct with the persons
in possession of the soil. Avadh was annexed on 13th
February 1856 and before the summary settlement could be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17
completed mutiny broke out in Lucknow on 30th May, 1857, and
the authority of the British Government having come to a
standstill, the entire records so far prepared were
destroyed. After the furies of the mutiny were over and the
British Government was able to re-control the province, Lord
Canning, issued a proclamation on 15th march, 1859,
confiscating all proprietary rights in the soil of the
province. The Second Summary Settlement was thereafter made
on the principle of the restoration of the status quo at the
time of the annexation. This secured the position of
Taluqdars and landlords, but gave no relief to the under-
proprietors or to other subordinate tenure-holders.
In the year 1864 Sir John Lawrence became the Viceroy
of India. With his intimate knowledge of the working of
rent law in the Punjab and the North-Western Province, he
was keen to recognise the rights of under-proprietors and
hereditary tenants in Avadh. He succeeded in protecting the
rights of the under-proprietors by the Oudh Sub-settlement
Act, 1886, which paved a way for further recognition of the
rights of subordinate tenure holders and tenants, and
culminated in the passing of the first Rent Act for Avadh in
1868 (Act XIX of 1868). This Act was soon after repealed in
part by Act VII of 1870, and on minor points was amended by
Acts XXXII of 1871, XVIII of 1876, XIV of 1878 and XIV of
1882. It was in the year 1886, that Act XXII of 1886 was
passed, which brought some substantial relief to tenants.
The changes brought about by this Act were: (1) statutory
rights of tenants, (2) limit of enhancement of rent, (3)
restrictions on ejectment and (4) the tenant’s right of
improvement. There were minor amendments by Acts XX of 1890
and XII of 1891 but they did not change the principle on
which the original Act was framed. The Amending Act IV of
1901 opened two new chapters in the rent law, viz (1) ex-
proprietary tenancy, and (2) resumption of rent-free grants.
This ex-proprietary right was apart from ex-proprietor’s
right of occupancy recognised by section 5 of the Oudh Rent
Act, 1886, and section 25 of the Oudh Laws Act.
These Acts and amendments, though beneficial in their
effect, failed to meet the changed economic conditions that
grew up with the increase in population, the development of
agriculture, and the rise in value of the agricultural
produce. There was growing distress and discontent all
round and the pent up feelings ultimately found expression
in the shape of Kisan Sabha movement. There were serious
riots in the whole of the province, made more ugly by the
retaliatory measures adopted by the landlords. The rioters’
slogan was: "no nazrana, no ejctment," while the landlords
in turn adopted every means to turn out the tenants from
their holdings, and extend their sir and khudkasht as much
as possible. These riots though put down with a heavy hand,
in any case, brought home to the Government, the necessity
of sympathetic amendments in the rent law. It was,
therefore, "to improve relations between landlords and
tenants in Oudh and specially to give the latter greater
security of tenure at a fair rental" that the Oudh Rent
(Amendment) Act IV of 1921 was enacted.
This Act had repercussions in the province of Agra.
There the Kisan movement gained momentum in the shape of
Eka, and in the words of Sir William Marris, drove the
Government to two conclusions: "(1) that it was
inequitable, and in the long run impossible to leave the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17
unprotected tenants of the Agra province in a less secure
position than the new statutory tenants in Oudh, and (2)
that it was our duty to take the matter up and deal with it
at a time, when the province was happily at peace, so as to
remove in good time such grounds of agrarian discontent as
might afford fuel for grave mischief, if such another wave
of ferment and excitement as occurred in 1922 were to
impinge again on the province." This consciousness of the
Government resulted in the enactment of the Agra Tenancy Act
III of 1926.
It should not be lost sight of, that at the time that
these two Acts, viz. the Oudh Rent (Amendment) Act and the
Agra Tenancy Act, were enacted, the Provincial Legislature
was dominated by landed interest, and these Acts were the
result of a compromise between the landlords and the
Government, as representing the interests of the tenants and
other subordinate tenure-holders. While securing protection
for the tenants, the Government had to yield certain
concessions to the landlords. These were abused, and
resulted in the "no rent" and "no revenue" campaign of 1930-
31, which had its genesis in the high rents, which had
become oppressive due to the sudden fall in the prices of
agricultural produce. To meet the situation the Government
enacted the U.P. Emergency Powers Ordinance XII of 1930 and
the U.P. Special Powers Act XIV of 1932. The tenants were
protected from ejectment on account of arrears of rent by
U.P. Arrears of Rent Act I of 1932, and were given relief
by U.P. Assistance of Tenants Act VIII of 1932 providing
remissions in arrears for 1337 and 1338 Faslis up to 25
P.C., and allowing payment of decreed amount by instalments;
by the Amending Act IX of 1934 in addition to several
executive measures, such as, Flat Rate Remission Scheme etc.
In September, 1939, the Great War began. It was a fight for
democracy and ended in its complete victory. Its effects
could not but be felt throughout the world. A feeling had
grown and developed by the year 1946, when the Congress
returned to power, that the feudal order or the existing
landlord-tenant system was inconsistent with the democratic
set-up of India, and the tillers of soil should be allowed
to reap the full fruits of their labour. On 8th of August,
1946, the following resolution was, therefore, passed by the
Legislative Assembly :
"This Assembly accepts the principle of the abolition
of the Zamindari system in this province which involves
intermediaries between the cultivator and the State and
resolves that the rights of such intermediaries should be
acquired on payment of equitable compensation and that
Government should appoint a Committee to prepare a scheme
for this purpose."
A Committee known as the Zamindari Abolition Committee
was appointed to report and make recommendations on the
following matters :
(1) Accepting the principle of the abolition of the
Zamindari system-
(a) What rights should be acquired?
(b) What would be the principle for the determination
of equitable compensation for the acquisition of such
rights?
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17
(c) What administrative and financial arrangements
would be required to give effect to the proposals formulated
under (a) and (b)?
(2) What would be the basic principles and precise
scheme of land tenure which will replace the existing system
of Zamindari in the Province?
(3) What would be the administrative organisation
required to give effect to new scheme of land tenure and, in
particular, what would be the machinery for collecting
Government dues?
The Committee submitted its report in August, 1948,
which after careful consideration was crystallised into the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Bill, 1949. The
Hon’ble Chief Minister while releasing the Bill for
publication made the following observation:
"We have given many long hours to the consideration of
the intricate and complex problems which form the subject-
matter of this Bill. It is the result of close study,
dispassionate consideration and sober discussion and I hope
it will be examined in the same spirit. We have not in any
way been influenced by any extraneous consideration. In
fact, we have never been hostile to Zamindars or for the
matter of that to any other section of the community. We
wish to do all that we can for the welfare of every one but
all of us have to realise that the good of each individual
lies in the good of all and in this new order it is
necessary that even for the preservation of individual
interest those of the larger whole should not be neglected
or under-rated.
"With the implementation of this measure, we hope,
many of our dreams would be realised. Next to the
achievement of independence for our country, I think, the
implementation of this comprehensive measure, which will
bring real Swaraj to about 50 millions of people in this
Province, will always be regarded as an outstanding step
towards the achievement of the destiny of our people."
The Bill was introduced in the Assembly on 7th July,
1949, and after a discussion lasting for several days it was
referred to a Joint Select Committee. This Committee was
able to make important changes in the Bill, and submitted
its report, which was published in the U.P. Gazette dated
29th December, 1949, and presented to the Assembly on 9th
January, 1950.
The Assembly took up the consideration of the Bill on
16th January, 1950, when its first reading took place, and
was ultimately passed on 4th August, 1950. It was presented
to the Legislative Council on 6th September, 1950, which
passed it on 30th November, 1950, with certain amendments.
The Bill as passed by the Council was returned to the
Assembly, which accepted the amendments on 26th December,
1950. It was again returned to the Legislative Council,
which accepted it on 16th January, 1951. His Excellency the
Governor reserved it for the assent of the President, who
gave his assent on 24th January, 1951, and the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, became the law of
the land from 26th January, 1951."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17
The Act was enforced with effect from July 1, 1952
when a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published
in the U.P. Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) of the even date. It
has also been stated in the introductory part of the above
commentary as under:-
"The Act has really created a peasant proprietorship,
and by the creation of Gaon Samaj and Gaon Sabha, to whom
all common lands, forests, trees, public wells, fisheries,
hats, bazars, melas, tanks, ponds, private ferries, pathways
and abadi sites would vest, an attempt has been made to
develop self-governing village communities. The
establishment of co-operative farming is also with the same
object, as also for creating a sense of community of
interest."
At another place, it is stated as under:-
"The Act has, in effect, abolished the feudal order
and landlord-tenant system and has replaced it by a system
pregnant for the development of a sense of democracy and a
community of interest. It has recognised the truth that
those who till the soil, must reap the fruits of their
labour." Section 4 which provides for the vesting of estates
in the State provides as under:-
"4. Vesting of estates in the State.-(1) As soon as
may be after the commencement of this Act, the State
Government may, by notification, declare that, as from a
date to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh
shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the
date so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting),
all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except
as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all
encumbrances.
(2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it
so considers necessary, to issue, from time to time, the
notification referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect only
of such area or areas as may be specified and all the
provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be applicable to and in
the case of every such notification."
Section 6 provides for the consequences of such
vesting. It is provided that all rights, title and interest
of all the intermediaries shall cease and be vested in the
State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances.
Section 7 which is relevant for the purpose of this
case and which saves certain rights provides, inter alia, as
under:-
"7. Saving in respect of certain rights.- Nothing
contained in this chapter shall in any way affect the right
of any person-
(a) ........................................
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17
(aa) being a bhumidhar, sirdar, adhivasi or asami of
any land, to continue to enjoy any easement or any similar
right for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land, as he
was enjoying on the date immediately preceding the date of
vesting;
(b) ........................................
........................................"
Section 9 provides as under:-
"9. Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings to be
settled with the existing owners or occupiers thereof.- All
wells, trees in abadi, and all buildings situate within the
limits of an estate, belonging to or held by an intermediary
or tenant or other person whether residing in the village or
not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such
intermediary, tenant or person, as the case may be, and the
site of the wells or the buildings within the area
appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with him
by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may
be prescribed."
Section 7 and 9 thus save certain rights. While
Section 7, inter alia, saves right of easement for better
and for more beneficial enjoyment of the land in the
possession of the tenure-holder, Section 9 provides that the
wells, trees in abadi and buildings belonging to or held by
an intermediary or tenant or other person, shall continue to
belong to that person and the site thereof including the
area appurtenant thereto would be deemed to have been
settled with him by the State Government. It is thus
obvious that wells, trees in abadi and buildings or the site
of the building which are fictionally settled with the owner
thereof including the land appurtenant thereto would not
vest in the State as a consequence of the Notification
issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act. The right of easement available under
Section 7 would also continue to be available to the person
who had been enjoying that right on the appurtenant land for
the better enjoyment of the land in his possession and such
right would not be destroyed on account of vesting of all
right, title and interest in the State.
Chapter VII of the Act deals with Gaon Samaj and Gaon
Sabha. Originally, Section 113 provided that a Gaon Samaj
would be established for each village. Section 114 provided
that a Gaon Samaj would include all adults ordinarily
residing in the circle for which it is established. Under
Section 115, the Government could alter the limits of Gaon
Samaj. Section 116 provided for the incidental orders on
account of changes in the jurisdiction of a Gaon Samaj.
Section 117 dealt with the vesting of certain land etc. in
the Gaon Samaj. Section 113 to 116 have since been deleted
by U.P. Act No. XXXIII of 1961 and Chapter VII has been
headed as "Gaon Sabha." Section 117 which provides for the
vesting of certain land etc. in the Gaon Sabha has been
retained. The relevant portion of this Section, as it stood
at the relevant time, is quoted below:-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17
"117. Vesting of certain lands, etc. in Gaon
Sabha.-(1) At any time after the publication of the
notification mentioned in Section 4, the State Government
may by notification in the Gazette declare that as from the
date to be specified (hereinafter in this chapter called the
specified date)-
(i) all land whether cultivable or otherwise, except
land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove,
(ii) all forests within the village boundaries,
(iii) all trees (other than trees in a holding or on
the boundary thereof or in a grove or abadi)
(iv) fisheries
(v) hats, bazars and melas, except hats, bazars and
melas held on land to which provisions of Clause (a) to (c)
of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply or on land referred
to in Section 9, and
(vi) tanks, ponds, private ferries, water channels,
path-ways and abadi sites,
situate in a Circle, which had vested in the State
under this Act, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha established for
the Circle :
Provided that, it shall be lawful for the State
Government to make the declaration aforesaid either in
respect of all or any of the things mentioned in Clauses (i)
to (vi) and in so doing, make such exceptions or impose such
conditions as it may specify in the notificatiion.
(2) ..........................................
(3) Where anything of the nature specified in Clauses
(i) to (vi) of Sub-section (1) has been vested in any Gaon
Sabha under Sub-section (2), such Gaon Sabha or its Land
Management Committee shall in respect of the part of the
village perform, discharge, or exercise functions, duties
and powers assigned, imposed or conferred by or under this
Act on a Gaon Sabha, or a Land Management Committee, as the
case may be, in relation to such thing and the holding area
within the part of the village.
(4) ..................................."
Section 126 provides that the State Government may
issue such orders and directions to the Land Management
Committee as may appear to be necessary for purposes of this
Act and it shall be the duty of the Land Management
Committee to forthwith carry out such orders and comply with
such directions. Comprehensive provisions have also been
made in respect of Gaon Sabha under the Uttar Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 of which only a few provisions are
referred to as they alone are relevant for the purpose of
the present case.
Section 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides that
the State Government shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, establish a Gram Sabha for a village or group of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17
villages.
A Gram Panchayat is constituted under Section 12 of
the Act for every Panchayat area.
Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or the Land Management
Committee is provided for by Section 28-A of the Uttar
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 which is quoted below:-
"28-A. Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti.-(1) The Gram
Panchayat shall also be the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and as
such discharge the duties of upkeep, protection and
supervision of all property belonging to or vested in or
held by the Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or
under any other provision of that Act.
(2) The Pradhan and Up-Pradhan shall respectively be
the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti, and the Lekhpal of the area comprised in the
jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat shall be its Secretary."
The duty to upkeep, protect and supervise all
properties belonging to or vested in or held by the Gram
Panchayat under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act or under any other provision of that
Act is that of the Land Management Committee or Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti.
Under Section 28-B, the functions of the Land
Management Committee have been indicated. The relevant
functions for purpose of this case is contained in Clause
(a) of Section 28-B which provides that the Land Management
Committee shall for and on behalf of Gram Panchayat be
charged with the general management, preservation and
control of all properties referred to in Section 28-A
including the settling and management of the land but not
including the transfer of any property for the time being
vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the U. P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or under any
other provision of that Act.
A perusal of relevant portion of Section 117 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (quoted
above) would indicate that only such land etc. would vest
in the Gaon Sabha as are mentioned in the Gazette
Notification issued under Section 117 of the Act. The words
".....which had vested in the State", used in this Section,
indicate that the property which had originally vested in
the State on account of the Notification issued under
Section 4 could be vested in the Gaon Sabha by a
Notification issued under Section 117. The analysis, thus,
clearly indicates that before a property is vested in the
Gaon Sabha, it should have first vested in the State
Government under Section 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act.
Power to admit any person as bhumidhar by the Land
Management Committee is contained in Section 195 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which, as it stood
at the relevant time, provides as under:-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17
"195. Admission to land.- The Land Management
Committee shall have the right to admit any person as sirdar
to any land (other than land falling in any of the classes
mentioned in Section 132) where-
(a) the land is vacant land,
(b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section
117, or
(c) the land has come into the possession of Land
Management Commitee under Section 194 or under any other
provision of this Act."
Admittedly, Clause (c), indicated above, is not
applicable to the facts of this case.
Now, Section 197 enables a Land Management Committee
to admit any person as asami of any land falling in any of
the classes mentioned in Section 132. This Section is also
not applicable to the facts of this case as the land of
which a lease was executed by the Land Management Committee,
in favour of the respondent, was not the land falling in any
of the classes mentioned in Section 132.
Section 198 sets out the order of preference in
admitting persons to land as bhumidhar under Section 195 and
as asami under Section 197. The order of preference set out
in Section 198 has to be followed by the Land Management
Committee in making allotments of the land.
The procedure which has to be followed by the Land
Management Committee in admitting any person to land under
Section 195 and 197 is set out in the Rules made under the
Act. The relevant Rules are Rules 173 to 178-A.
Sub-section (4) of Section 198 authorises the Collector to
cancel the allotment of lease of any land made by the Land
Management Committee suo motu on his own motion or on the
application of any person aggrieved by that allotment or
lease.
In the instant case, it was found as a fact by the
Consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) that part of the land in question was the
land appurtenant to the staff quarter of the Sugar Mill
while the other part was utilised for storage tanks for
molasses and for sullage water and other purposes connected
with the functioning of the Mill. Since the land in
question was being utilised as land appurtenant to the Staff
Quarter of the Mill from before the date of vesting, that
land would not vest in the State on account of Notification
issued under Section 4 of the Act. The easement right
available to the Sugar Mill in respect of the plots in
question would also not stand destroyed and would continue
to be enjoyed by the Mill.
The findings recorded concurrently by the
Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) regarding the land in question being the
land appurtenant to the Staff Quarter of the Mill or the
land being utilised for storage of molasses and sullage
water etc. have not been set aside by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation nor has the High Court held that the
findings were erroneous. That being so, the property, at no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17
stage, vested in the State and, therefore, it could not, at
any subsequent stage, vest in the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon
Sabha, therefore, could not legally execute any lease in
respect of these plots in favour of the respondent.
The High Court, without considering these questions,
held that the validity of the lease, executed by the Gaon
Sabha in favour of the respondent, could not be legally
examined by the Consolidation Authorities under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Relinace for this
purpose was placed by the High Court on the Full Bench
decision of the Allahabad High Court in Similesh Kumar vs.
Gaon Sabha, Uskar, Ghazipur and ohters, 1977 Revenue
Decision 409 = AIR 1977 Allahabad 360 and Bhurey and another
vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and ors., 1984 Revenue Decision
294, in which the Allahabad High Court while considering the
effect of amendment introduced in Section 210 held that a
trespasser over the Gaon Sabha land cannot acquire sirdari
rights even if he was in possession of that land for more
than 12 years. The High Court also relied upon another
decision in Chatar Singh vs. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi
and others, 1979 A.C.J. 335, in which it was again held
that even if a person was in possession over the property of
the Gaon Sabha for more than 12 years, he would not acquire
sirdari rights under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
In the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High
Court, referred to above, it was held that the Consolidation
Authorities have no jurisdiction to consider the question of
cancellation of lease which could be considered only by
regular courts. The decision of this Court in Gorakh Nath
Dube vs. Hari Narain Singh and others, (1973) 2 SCC 535 =
1974 (1) SCR 339 = 1973 Revenue Decision 423, in which it
was held that a void document which was liable to be ignored
by the court would not affect the jurisdiction of the
Consolidation Courts was distinguished. So also the
decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
in Jagarnath Shukla vs. Sita Ram Pande and others, 1969
A.L.J. 768, which was affirmed by this Court in Gorakh Nath
Dube’s case (supra) was also distinguished. We have
carefully considered these decisions and, in our opinion,
the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court was in error in
distinguishing the decision of this Court in Gorakh Nath
Dube’s case (supra) which has since been followed by this
Court in Dulari Devi vs. Janardan Singh 1990 Supp. SCC
216; Ashrafi Lal vs. Koili (1995) 4 SCC 163; and
Muneshwar vs. Raja Mohammed Khan (1998) 6 SCC 582.
The decision of this Court in Gorakh Nath Dube’s case
(supra) was also followed by the Allahabad High Court in
Ramanand vs. D.D.C. and others, 1987 Revenue Decision 430,
and it was held that a document which is void and is,
therefore, liable to be ignored by the courts, would not
affect the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Courts and they
would be within their jurisdiction in adjudicating upon that
document so as to finally decide the rights of the parties.
The Full Bench decision of the High Court in Similesh
Kumar’s case (supra) was distinguished.
In the instant case, in view of the provisions of
Section 7(aa) and Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, the land in dispute, which was held by
the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) to be the land appurtenant to the Staff
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17
Quarter of the Sugar Mill, had not vested in the State under
Section 6 of the Act as a consequence of the Notification
issued under Section 4 of the Act. Once these plots did not
vest in the State, it would not vest in the Gaon Sabha and
the Gaon Sabha had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant
lease of those plots to the respondent. Such a lease was a
void document from the inception and, consequently, the
jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities was not
affected. No other point was pressed before us.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated
28.7.1989, passed by the Allahabad High Court as also the
judgment dated 31.03.1975, passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, are set aside while the judgment dated
19.4.1969, passed by the Consolidation Officer and the
judgment dated 25.11.1969, passed by the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) are upheld and the objections filed by the
respondent under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 on the basis of the lease deed granted in
his favour by the Land Management Committee claiming sirdari
rights are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.