Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SMT. BELI RAM SINGH CHOWDHRY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ASSAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT31/10/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
KIRPAL B.N. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1995 (8) 108 1995 SCALE (6)302
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises against the
judgment and decree dated August 4, 1981 of the Gauhati High
Court at Guwahati made in S.A. No. 17/76. The appellants-
plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title that the
lands in Chaibari Village which were part of Machpara Estate
were given to Dayamoyee Devi, daughter of Rai Bahadur
Prithiram Chowdhury, the holder of the said estate as dowry
at the time of her marriage and that she and thereafter her
successors including the plaintiffs had been in possession
and enjoyment of the lands in their own right. The lands
therein did not stand vested in the State of Assam under the
Assam State Acquisition of the Zamindaries Act, 1951. The
trial court decreed the suit. But on appeal, the District
Judge reversed the decree and held that the appellants had
failed to prove that the appellants possessed the lands in
their own right and that it was not vested in the State.
Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. In second appeal, while
upholding the findings of the appellate Court, the learned
Single Judge of the High Court held that if the compensation
for the lands comprised in Chaibari Village were not paid, a
conditional decree was passed directing the State to pay the
compensation in respect thereof to the appellants. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
Shri S.K. Nandy, learned counsel for the appellants,
has contended that since the lands had passed on from the
Zamindar to his daughter as dowry, she became the absolute
owner of the property. The State had not proved that they
had acquired the land under the Act and that compensation
was paid to them. Thereby the lands did not vest in the
State. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding
that the title of the land in favour of the appellants stood
extinguished under the Act. We find no force in the
contention.
The High Court has gone into the question of adverse
possession pleaded by the appellants and held that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
adverse possession is an encumbrance under the State Revenue
Act and it does not bind the State. Therefore, as against
the State, the appellant had not perfected her title by
adverse possession. It was also held that since the
appellants had asserted title to the property, burden is on
the appellants to establish that they had title to the
plaint schedule lands and continued to have title thereto.
Since they failed to establish the title, the appellants
cannot be held to be the owners of the land. High Court
called upon the Government to produce certain notifications.
Since they were not produced, the High Court had expressed
its displeasure for the lethargy on the part of the
officials of the Government but that was not conclusive. The
ultimate finding is that the appellants had not proved their
title to the lands and they did not form part of the
acquisition under the Act. They did not remain as owners of
the lands and the lands stood vested in the State. These
conclusions reached by the High Court are not vitiated by
any manifest error of law warranting interference.
However, the High Court had granted conditional decree,
namely, the payment of the compensation, if not already
paid. It is, therefore, for the appellants to make an
application to the appropriate authority seeking payment, if
not already received, and the competent authority would
consider and dispose of the matter within three months from
the date of making the application for payment of
compensation, if not already paid. The appeal is disposed of
in above terms. No costs.