SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR, S.N. DWIVEDI AND A.K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.
S. P. Watel and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Writ Petn. No, 105 of 1969 and Civil Appeal Nos. 1402 and 1403 of 1969, D/-27-3-1973.
Writ Petn. No. 105 of 1969:
Civil Appeal Nos. 1402 and 1403 of 1969:
S. P. Watel and others, Appellants
Versus
Bhagwat Dayal and others, Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14,19(1)(f),31 and 31A - U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 – Section 30(3), 2(12), 2(6), 17(1)(b) – Land – Lease deed – Trust - City of Meerut is a municipality in Uttar Pradesh - Plot is located therein - It has an area of 1 bigha and 2 biswas - It formed part of zamindari estate belonging to Lala Nanak Chand Trust - Trust is a charitable trust vested in Treasurer of Charitable Endowments and is managed by Collector of Meerut through a committee of trustees - Lease deed was executed on behalf of trust and in favour of one - By deed the aforesaid plot was let to said one - Lease was granted "for purpose of planting a grove, erecting buildings and digging wells etc - Whether there stood a grove on land in dispute – Held, in the suit respondent s case was that said one their predecessor-in-interest, had planted a grove on land in depute - Trial court had appointed a commissioner for finding out whether there stood a grove on land in dispute - Commissioner submitted his report to trial court- Accordingly, it is not possible to express any concluded opinion on question whether land in dispute was an "agricultural area" on the date specified under S. 2 (1) and was being used for horticulture - Issue should now be decided afresh by appropriate authority under the Act - In the result, court allow the writ petition and quash Government notification under S. 8 of the Act, with respect to the land in dispute – Court direct the Government to proceed afresh with respect to land in dispute in accordance with Ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act - If it is found in course of enquiry under Se. 3, 4 and 5 that the land in dispute was an "agricultural area and was being used for agriculture or horticulture on relevant date, it will be open to Government to issue a notification with respect to it under S. 8 - Order accordingly.
Judgment
DWIVEDI, J.: - These three cases have a common origin and are accordingly being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The city of Meerut is a municipality in Uttar Pradesh. Plot No. 4635A (old number 5199) is located therein. It has an area of 1 bigha and 2 biswas. It formed part of the zamindari estate belonging to Lala Nanak Chand Trust. The trust is a charitable trust vested in the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments and is managed by the Collector of Meerut through a committee of trustees. On June 23, 1926, a lease deed was executed on behalf of the trust and in favour of one Bateshwar Dayal. By the deed the aforesaid plot was let to Bateshwar Dayal. The lease was granted "for the purpose of planting a grove, erecting buildings and digging wells etc." The yearly rent was fixed at Rs. 12/8/-. The lease was for a term of 30 years with effect from June 1, 1926. The lessee agreed to surrender the land and all buildings standing thereon to the lessor on the expiry of the period of lease. The buildings would become the property of the lessor. He would have them without paying any compensation to the lessee. The lessor agreed that on the expiration of the period of lease he would at the request of the lessee grant to the lessee a new lease for another term of 30 years.
3. The initial period of 30 years expired on July 1, 1956. Thereupon the trust instituted suit No. 690 of 1956 for recovery of possession over the aforesaid land from Bateshwar Dayal. During pendency of this suit Bateshwar Dayal died on March 6, 1958. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on October 24, 1958. It was, however, decreed by the first appellate court on November 30, 1959. The appellate court granted six months time to the defendants to institute a suit in the appropriate court for specific performance of the agreement to re-let for another term of 30 years.
4. Bhagwat Dayal and others, heirs of Bateshwar Dayal, then instituted suit No. 34 of 1960 in the appropriate Court for specific performance of the agreement to re-let the land for another term of 30 years. The Trust contested this suit inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. This plea was upheld by the trial court and the suit was dismissed on October 30, 1961, The first appellate court affirmed the decree of the trial court on March 23, 1962.
5. Bhagwat Dayal and others filed a second appeal in the Allahabad High Court against the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by the Trust on January 5, 1960. They also filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree in their own suit on April 23, 1962.
6. While those appeals were pending the U. P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) was enforced in the city of Meerut. The land in dispute was declared "agricultural area, under the said Act. Thereafter a notification was issued on, June 16, 1964 under S. 8 of the Act vesting the land in the State.
7. Bhagwat Dayal then moved an application before the High Court for abating the two appeals as well as the two suits out of which those appeals had arisen in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The High Court passed an order abating troth the suits and appeals. The order was made on July 25, 1968. Against this order the appellants have filed two appeals in this Court by special leave.
8. The appellants say that they have filed the writ petition No. 105 of 1969 by way of abundant caution. The prayer in the petition is that the notification issued under Section 8 of the Act should be quashed. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that the disputed plot is a part of Kothi Babu Wali. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is reiterated that the disputed plot forms part of a residential kothi within the municipality of Meerut and is non-agricultural area. It is alleged that the impugned notification is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution and is accordingly unconstitutional
Referred : In Durga Prasad v. Board of Revenue U. P. Allahabad and Others
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.