Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 291

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd August, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Govt. of the State of U.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
Kunwar Sri Trivikram Narain Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. K B. Asthana and C. P. Lal, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, C.B.AGARWAL, C.PAL, K.B.ASTHANA, M.C.SETALVAD, S.P.Varma

A right to an allowance granted in lieu of a hereditary estate is not extinguished by the vesting of the estate in the State under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 1 of 1951), unless the allowance is an "estate" within the meaning of Section 3(8) of the Act or a right or privilege in respect of land or land revenue within the meaning of Section 6(b) of the Act.

Headnote:
ZAMINDARI ABOLITION - UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1951 - SECTION 6(B) - RIGHT TO ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF HEREDITARY ESTATE - WHETHER EXTINGUISHED BY VESTING OF ESTATE IN STATE.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a descendant of Harnarain Singh, claimed an allowance granted to his ancestors in 1838 as compensation for the abandonment of their right to the land and revenue of parganas "Syudpore Bhettree". The allowance was computed as 1/4th share of the revenue assessed on 166 mahals, but the respondent had no interest in the land or revenue thereof. The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the allowance was extinguished by the vesting of the estate in the State under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 1 of 1951), and that no compensation was payable for its extinction.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the allowance granted to the respondent was not an "estate" within the meaning of Section 3(8) of Act 1 of 1951 and therefore was not extinguished by the vesting of the estate in the State under Section 4. The Court further held that the allowance was not a right or privilege in respect of land or land revenue within the meaning of Section 6(b) of Act 1 of 1951, and therefore was not extinguished by the operation of that clause. The Court also held that there was no provision in the Act for payment of compensation for a right such as the one claimed by the respondent, which strongly supported the plea that the right was not intended to be acquired or extinguished.
Issues: Whether the right to an allowance granted in lieu of a hereditary estate is extinguished by the vesting of the estate in the State under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 1 of 1951).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the allowance granted to the respondent was not an "estate" within the meaning of Section 3(8) of Act 1 of 1951 and therefore was not extinguished by the vesting of the estate in the State under Section 4. The Court further held that the allowance was not a right or privilege in respect of land or land revenue within the meaning of Section 6(b) of Act 1 of 1951, and therefore was not extinguished by the operation of that clause. The Court also held that there was no provision in the Act for payment of compensation for a right such as the one claimed by the respondent, which strongly supported the plea that the right was not intended to be acquired or extinguished.
Final Decision: The Court modified the order passed by the High Court and dismissed the respondent's petition in so far as it dealt with remission of land revenue in respect of the 12 mahals of "Syudpore Bhettree". The Court confirmed the order of the High Court in respect of the allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

SHAH, J. : Under a treaty between the East India Company and Nawab Asafuddaula, the Province of Banaras was ceded about the year 1775 to the East India Company. The Company then granted a sanad to Raja Chet Singh, the former ruler of Banaras, and under that sanad, the rights and powers previously held by Raja Chet Singh were conferred afresh. Raja Chet Singh granted in jagir, pargana "Syudpore Bhettree" in perpetuity to his Diwan Ousan Singh as remuneration for services rendered to his family. Raja Chet Singh having renounced his gadi, the East India Company confirmed the grant made by the Raja in favour of Ousan Singh. Raja Chet Singh was succeeded by Raja Mahip Narain Singh who executed a sanad in favour of Ousan Singh affirming the grant.

2. Land revenue settlements were made in the Province of Banaras about the year 1789-90. but the jagirs including "Syudpore Bhettree" were excluded from that settlement. Ousan Singh died in or about the year 1800, and his son Sheo Narain Singh succeeded to the jagir. In the enquiry held by the Collector of Ghazipore into the proprietary right claimed by the jagirdar under Regulation II of 1819, it was declared that the grant to Ousan Singh was for life only and did not confer a heritable or transferable tenure in the parganas. The decision of the Collector was confirmed by the Commissioner of Bihar and Banaras, subject to the recommendation that Sheo Narain Singh should be maintained in possession of the parganas for life. The Government then directed in 1828 that a detailed settlement be made with the village zamindars, and offered Sheo Narain Singh allowance for life of one-half of the revenue to be assessed on the pargana. Sheo Narain Singh declined to accept the offer and commenced an action in the civil court contesting the validity of the order resuming the jagir. The Government considered the question afresh, and resolved to revise the order of resumption and in July 1830, ordered that Sheo Narain Singh be considered Tehsildar of parganas"Syudpore Bhettree", and that the office be treated as hereditary devolving upon the descendants of the jagirdar and held so long as the incumbent did not infringe the privileges found to belong to other classes at the time of formation of the settlement. Sheo Narain Singh died before the resolution of the Government was communicated to him and he was succeeded by his son Harnarain Singh who withdrew the suit and signed a compromise incorporating the terms of the resolution.

3. On August 19, 1831, the Secretary to the Government addressed to the Agent of the Governor-General at Banaras a letter requesting the Secretary to the Governor-General in the Pension department to prepare the necessary documents relating to the grant of a sanad specifying that parganas "Syudpore Bhettreer were granted on an "istmrar" tenure to Harnarain Singh for his own benefit and of his heirs and successors in perpetuity on condition of their paying to government 3/4ths of the Jamma which the revenue officers may in a resettlement of the parganas assess thereon, and that all claims to proprietary right to any village or villages situate in the said parganas shall be fully enquired into and in the event of any such claims being established to the satisfaction of the Government, the village or villages forming the subject of the claim shall be considered distinct from and independent of the grant and that a settlement shall be made with the proprietors as in other cases; that the office of Tehsildar shall belong to Harnarain Singh and be hereditary in his family so long as the conditions prescribed for the duties of that office be not infringed, and that in virtue of such office, the separate proprietors shall continue to pay the Jamma which may be assessed on their villages through Harnarain Singh or such other member of the family as the Government may appoint, provided that 1/4th of the Jamma of such separated villages shall be deducted from the payment to be made t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document