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.