2000 Supreme(SC) 296

2000(1) Supreme 435
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. -Appellant
versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 854 of 1991
Decided on 7-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : B.D. Agarwal, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Sr. Advocates, (R.B. Misra) Advocate (NP), Pradeep Misra, T. Mahipal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Uma Datta, P. Gaur, K. Misra, R.C. Verma, Advocates.

Headnote:U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953-Section 9-U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Sections 7, 9 and 198-Sirdari right-Rival claims by appellant and respondent-Appellant s claim on basis of rights over land obtained from zamindar prior to Zamindari Abolition Act came into force-Respondent s claim on basis of lease deed executed in his favour by land Management Committee-Consolidation officers finding that appellant in possession of land and land is appurtenants to its staff quarters-Further finding that lease in favour of respondent was collusive and void-High Court, however, holding that consolidation officer had no jurisdiction to enquire into validity of lease deed-High Court holding respondent to be sirdari-Untenable-Land in question did not vest in Government and consequently land not vested in Gaon Sabha-Land Management Committee could not have executed lease deed-Appellant s right over land protected under Sections 7 and 9 of Zamindari Abolition Act-Finding of consolidation officer and settlement officer were correct-High Court s judgment set aside.

       Held : The mere fact that a notice under Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act the 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lease-deed executed in favour of respondent and the proceedings initiated on the basis of that notice were subsequently withdrawn, would not mean that the lease was valid specially when the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) both had held that the land which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 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Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for cancellation of the lease in favour of the respondent were initiated and withdrawn without there being any notice ever issued to the Sugar Mill. (Para 10)

       Section 7 and 9 of the Zamindari Abolition Act 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. (Para 25)

       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 word ".... 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. (Para 32)

       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. (Para 34)

       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 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. (Paras 37 & 38)

       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 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. (Para 42)