Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th December, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
1. Raghubar Sarup and others, (In Petn. No. 202 of 55);
2. Nawab Jamshed Ali Khan and others, (In Petn. No. 203 of 55);
3. Ziaullah Khan and others, (In Petn. No. 204 of 55);
4. Hidayat Ali Khan and others, (In Petn. No. 211 of 55);
5. Shrimati Mumtaz Dulhan Begum, (In Petn. No. 214 of 55);
6. Nawabzada Jafar Ali Khan, (In Petn. No. 215 of 55);
7. Sultan Hussan Khan and another, (In Petn. No. 403 of 55);
8. Aziz Dulah Khan and others, (In Petn. No. 404 of 55), Petitioners;
Versus
The State of U.P. and others (in Petns. Nos. 202-204, 211, 214, 215, 403 and 404 of 1955), Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 202-204, 211, 214, 215, 403 and 404 of 1955.
(From: Allahabad)*
1. S. Shaukat Ali, (In C. A. No. 516 of 57);
2. Faiz Mohammad, (In C. A. No. 517 of 57);
3. Amjad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 518 of 57);
4. Ashiq Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 519 of 57);
5. Ibrahim Ali Khan and Anr., (In C. A. No. 520 of 57);
6. Mohd. Husain Khan, (In C. A. No. 521 of 57);
7. Amjad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 522 of 57);
8. Hamid Khan, (In C. A. No. 523 of 57);
9. Tajammul Hasain, (In C. A. No. 524 of 57);
10. Lateef Shah Khan, (In C. A. No. 525 of 57);
11. Akhtar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 526 of 57);
12. Ashraf Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 527 of 57);
13. Ashfaq Hasain Khan, (In C. A. No. 528 of 57);
14. Salamat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 529 of 57);
15. Saadat Yar Khan, (In C. A. No. 530 of 57);
16. S. Ataul Haq, (In C. A. No. 531 of 57);
17. Mohd. Aziz Husan Khan, (In C. A. No. 532 of 57);
18. Imdad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 533 of 57);
19. Mohd. Ayub Khan, (In C. A. No. 534 of 57);
20. Sheel Chand, (In C A. No. 535 of 57);
21. Ataul Haq, (In C. A. No. 536 of 57);
22. Syed Imdad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 537 of 57);
23. Baqar Raza Khan, (In C. A. No. 538 of 57);
24. Almad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 539 of 57);
25. Naushey Khan, (In C. A. No. 540 of 57);
26. Maharun Nabi Khan, (In C. A. No. 541 of 57);
27. Shaukat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 542 of 57);
28. Abdul Qayum Khan, (In C. A. No. 543 of 57);
29. Mohi Uddin Khan, (In C. A. No. 544 of 57);
30. Mohd. Imtiaz Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 545 of 57);
31. Syed Hyder Ali, (In C. A. No. 546 of 57);
32. Wajid Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 547 of 57);
33. Latif-uz-Zaman Khan, (In C. A. No. 548 of 57);
34. Mohi-Uddin Khan, (In C. A. No. 549 of 57);
35. Mohd. Ibrabim Khan, (In C. A. No. 550 of 57);
36. Asghar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 551 of 57);
37. Chunnoo Khan, (In C. A. No. 552 of 57);
38. Barney Khan, (In C. A. No. 553 of 57);
39. Yusuf Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 554 of 57);
40. Banney Khan, (In C. A. No. 555 of 57) ;
41. Razi Uddin Khan, (In C. A. No. 556 of 57);
42. Mohamood Raza Khan, (In C. A. No. 557 of 57);
43. Major Agha Zakir, (In C. A. No. 558 of 57);
44. Mahmood Raza Khan, (In C. A. No. 559 of 57);
45. Maharun Nabi Khan, (In C. A. No. 560 of 57);
46. Naushey Khan, (In C. A. No. 561 of 57);
47. Saadat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 562 of 57);
48. Amjad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 563 of 57);
49. Mohd. Fateh Shah Khan, (In C. A. No. 564 of 57);
50. Ayub Shah Khan, (In C. A. No. 565 of 57);
51. Ashan Raza Khan, (In C. A. No. 566 of 57);
52. Saadat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 567 of 57);
53. Mubarak Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 568 of 57);
54. Ahmad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 569 of 57);
55. Sardar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 570 of 57);
56. Achan Khan, (In C. A. No. 571 of 57);
57. Khurshid Hasan, (In C. A. No. 572 of 57);
58. Firoz Shah Khan, (In C. A. No. 573 of 57);
59. Fayaz Husain Khan, (In C. A. No. 574 of 57);
60. Yusuf Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 575 of 57);
61. Akbar Hasan Khan, (In C. A. No. 576 of 57);
62. Fayaz Husain Khan, (In C. A. No. 577 of 57);
63. Ghanzanfar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 578 of 57);
64. Paarey Lal, (In C. A. No. 579 of 57);
65. Aziz Doolah Khan, (In C. A. No. 580 of 57);
66. Azizul Hasan, (In C. A. No. 581 of 57);
67. Major (Mirza) Abdul Rashid Khan, (In C. A. No. 582 of 57);
68. Fazal Husain Khan, (In C. A. No. 583 of 57);
69. Mohd. Yusuf Khan, (In C. A No. 584 of 57);
70. Wahid Husain, (In C. A. No. 585 of 57);
71. Mohabat Khan, (In C. A. No. 586 of 571;
72. Abdul Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 587 of 57);
73. Shamsuddin, (In C. A. No. 588 of 57);
74. Mohd. Latif Khan, (In C. A. No. 589 of 57);
75. Syed Ali Hosan, (In C. A. No. 590 of 57);
76. Ali Jan Khan, (In C. A. No. 591 of 57);
77. Muzaffar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 592 of 57);
78. Amanat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 593 of 57); 910
79. Abbas Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 594 of 57);
80. Capt. Imaran Shah, (In C. A. No. 595 of 57);
81. Manak Chand, (In C. A. No. 596 of 57);
82. Ravi Shankar, (In C. A. No. 597 of 57);
83. Brij Nandan Prasad, (In C. A. No. 598 of 57);
84. Shiv Dayal Singh, (In C. A. No. 590 of 57);
85. Shaukat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No 600 of 57);
86. L. Ram Asrey Lal, (In C. A. No. 601 of 57);
87. L. Ram Bharosey Lal, (In C. A. No. 602 of 57);
88. Mohd. Hasan Khan, (In C. A. No. 603 of 57);
89. Col. Habibur Rahman, (In C. A. No. 604 of 57);
100. Kishan Lal, (In C. A. No. 605 of 57);
101. Nazir Ahmad Khan, (In C. A. No. 606 of 57);
102. Azmat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 607 (of 57);
103. Mustaq Ahmad, (In C. A. No. 608 of 57);
104. Taj Mohd. Khan, (In C. As. Nos. 609 and 610 of 57);
105. Manzur Shah Khan, (In C. A. No. 611 of 57);
106. Mohd. Saiduddin Khan, (In C. A. No. 612 of 57);
107. Shafiqun Nabi Khan, (In C. A. No. 6l3 of 57);
108. Ram Sarup, (In C. A. No. 614 of 57);
109. Zahoor Ahmad Khan, (In C. A. No. 615 of 57);
l10. Rafiullah Khan, (In C. A. No. 616 of 57);
111. Sahibzada Ashfaq Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 617 of 57);
l12. Hafiz Shaukat Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 618 of 57);
l13. Gohar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 619 of 57);
l14. Mohammad Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 620 of 57);
115. Lt. Col. Dilawar Husain Khan, (In C. A. No. 621 of 57);
l16. Gauhar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 622 of 57);
l17. Mohd Husain Khan, (In C. A. No. 623 of 57);
l18. Aziz Ahmad Khan, (In C. A. No. 624 of 57);
119. Azizuddin Khan, (In C. A. No. 625 of 57);
120. Naumuddin Khan, (In C. A. No. 626 of 57);
121. Nawabzada Zafar Ali Khan, (In C. A. No. 661 of 57
and
122. Shreemati Mumtaz Dulhan Begam, (In C. A. No. 662 of 57); Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 516-626, 661 and 662 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. P. Gupta and Mr. S. N. Andley of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., Advocates, with him), for Petitioners. (In Petn. No. 202/55) & Appellants (In C. As. Nos. 516-626/57) (Except C. As. Nos. 530, 540, 569, 600, 601 and 617/57); Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocate, with him), for Petitioner (In Petns. Nos. 214 and 215/55) and Appellants (In C. As. Nos. 661 and 662/57); Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Shaukat Hussain and S. S. Shukla, Advocates, with him), for Petitioner (In Petn. No. 204/55); M/s, Shaukat Hussain and S. S. Shukla, Advocates, for Petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 403 and 404/55); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. Gopi Nath Dikshit, Advocate, with him), for Respondents, (In all the Petitions and Appeals).
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and appeals on certificates granted by the Allahabad High Court question the action taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. I of 1951, (hereinafter called the Abolition Act) and the Rampur Thekedari and Pattedari Abolition Act No. X of 1954, (hereinafter called the Thekedad Act). We propose to deal with them by one judgment as they raise common points and in the case of some petitioners lands covered by both the Acts are involved.
2. The former State of Rampur was an independent State under the paramountcy of the British Crown before 1947. When India became a Dominion on the passing of the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the State of Rampur acceded in August, 1947, to the Dominion of India by means of an instrument of accession. This was followed by a merger agreement between the Ruler of the Rampur State and the Dominion of India on May 15, 1949, by which the Ruler agreed to transfer the entire administration of the State to the Dominion as from July 1, 1949. The Governor General then passed an order on July 1, 1949, known as the Rampur (Administration) Order by which a Chief Commissioner was appointed to administer the area of the former Rampur State under the Government of India. This was followed on November 29, 1949, by the States Merger (United Provinces) Order, 1949, promulgated by the Governor General by which the administration of the former State of Rampur was transferred to the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Rampur thereafter became a district in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In 1951 the State of Uttar Pradesh passed the Abolition Act. It was, however, not applied to the district of Rampur initially; but power was reserved under S. 2 to apply the whole or any provisions of the Act to Rampur as defined in the Rampur (Administration) Order, 1949, subject to such exceptions or modifications, not affecting the substance, as the circumstances of the case may require. By virtue of this power, notification No. 3168/1-A-559/ 1951 was issued on June 30, 1954, applying the Abolition Act to Rampur. This was followed by another notification No. 3169/1-A559/1951 on July 1, 1954, declaring that all estates situate in Rampur vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. These notifications are the target of attack in the petitions and appeals relating to jagirs, zamindaris and muafis in Rampur.
3. The system of land tenure in the former Rampur State was this. In a portion of the State known as Ileqz Jadid, which was ceded by the Government of India to the former Rampur State in 1857, there were intermediaries called Zamindars who were in all respects similar to the Zamindars in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Secondly, some lands had been conferred by the Ruler of the State on certain persons as jagirs or muafis. The holders of these estates did not pay any land revenue which was payable by the Zamindars; they only paid a local rate or abvab. Thirdly, the rest of the land in the State consisted of Ehau villages, i. e. lands belonging to the State in which there were no intermediaries between the State and the tillers of the soil. In this class of lands, there were villages which were almost uninhabited and very little land in these villages was under cultivation. The Ruler of Rampur decided in March 1949 to lease out some of these villages to persons who were called Thekedars or Pattedars in order that these persons might settle tenants and invest money in the villages so that lands lying uncultivated might be brought under cultivation and the production of food grains might increase. These leases were to be in the first instance for a period of ten years with a right to the State to extend the period by another ten years. The leases provided what the Thekedars were to do in order to bring lands in villages leased to them under cultivation and also provided what percentage of the profits was to be paid to the Stat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
