SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 242

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. GOSWAMI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sarjoo Devi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2334 of 1968,
D/- 27-7-1977.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. N. Dikshit, Sr. Advocate (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him). for Appellant: M/s. Faujdar Rao, Jagdish Misra and U. S. Prasad, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
FAUJDAR RAI, G.N.DIKSHIT, Jagdish Mishra, O.P.RANA, U.S.Prasad

Headnote:

U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section, 212A - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4 - Right claim - Land as a reserved forest - Finding that said land was lying uncultivated Collector Gorakhpur served aforesaid with notice Section - Land Utilization Act calling upon them either to cultivate land themselves or to let out same to other persons for cultivation - Said Zamindars thereupon settled land in with respondent by executing as in her favor for growing crops for cultivation and conferred hereditary tenancy rights on her - On May notification Section of Indian Forest was published - Gazette in respect acres of land of village including land in question declaring that it had been decided to constitute said land as reserved forest - This was followed in June by proclamation as required by Section Forest Act - Respondent thereupon preferred her claim in respect of her rights to land in question before Forest Settlement Officer – Held, Bare perusal definition of word land as contained in Section - Act which is reproduced above would show that it is not necessary for land to fall within purview of this definition that it must be actually cultivation or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture - Requirement of definition is in our opinion amply satisfied if land is either held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture - Word occurring in above definition which is apple of word hold is of wide import - In Unabridged Edition of Random House Dictionary English Language word hold has been inter alia stated to mean to have ownership or use of keep as one’s own - In Dictionary of English Law by Earl Edition word hold has been interpreted as meaning to have as tenant - In instant case it has been concurrently found by courts below on basis of evidence adduced in case that land in question was let out to respondent aforesaid intermediaries in May for growing crops that she brought substantial portion thereof under cultivation paid rent to Das against proper receipts that she has been regularly paying revenue to appellant and that she has all along lawfully continued to land for purposes connected with agriculture - It is also established from appellants own revenue record that respondent was holding land as hereditary tenant on date immediately preceding date of vesting - There is therefore no manner of doubt that she fulfilled all requisite conditions and became land on date of vesting Section - Act - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

JASWANT SINGH, J. - This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 5, 1968 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decisions of the District Judge and the Civil Judge, Basti, dated May 20, 1960 and July 27, 1959 respectively decreeing the suit instituted by respondent No. 1 herein under sub-section (7) of Sec. 212A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act), which came into force on January 26, 1951, arises in the following circumstances:-

The land in dispute measuring 142 bighas, 1 biswa and 18 dhurs situate in village Baudhara, Tappa Manhdawal, Pargana Maghar East, Tehsil Khalilabad, District Basti, belonged in 1956 A. D. to Girdhar Das and Purshottam Das, Zamindars of Gorakhpur City, who became intermediaries under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. Finding that the said land was lying uncultivated, the Collector, Gorakhpur, served the aforesaid Zamindars with a notice under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Utilisation Act calling upon them either to cultivate the land themselves or to let out the same to other persons for cultivation. The said Zamindars thereupon settled the land in May, 1950 (1357 Fasli) with respondent No. 1 by executing pattas in her favour for growing crops i. e. for cultivation and conferred hereditary tenancy rights on her. On May 1, 1954, a notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was published in the U. P. Gazette in respect of 342 acres of land of village Baudhara including the land in question declaring that it had been decided to constitute the said land as a reserved forest. This was followed in June, 1954 by a proclamation as required by Section 6 of the Forest Act. Respondent No. 1 thereupon preferred her claim in respect of her rights to the land in question before the Forest Settlement Officer. On January 22, 1955, when the said claim preferred by respondent No. 1 was still pending. Ram Naresh Tewari, father of respondent No. 5, describing himself as Sabhapati of Gaon Samaj, Baraipur, filed an application purporting to be under Section 212A (1) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khalilabad (who was empowered by the State Government to discharge the functions of a Collector) for ejectment from the land in question of respondent No. 1 on the ground that it was a customary common pasture land and as such had vested in the Gaon Samaj and that the said respondent had encroached upon the same. By his order dated August 16, 1955, the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad, allowed the aforesaid application of Ram Naresh Tewari and ordered the ejectment of respondent No. 1. After unsuccessfully trying by means of a review petition to have the aforesaid order of her ejectment quashed, respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid suit, being suit No. 7 of 1956, on February 15, 1960 under sub-sec. (7) of Section 212A of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act against the State of U. P., the appellant herein, and four others including Ram Naresh Tewari, the father of respondent No. 5, for declaration that the aforesaid order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad, was illegal, ineffective, null and void and was not binding on her and that she was a sirdar in possession of the land in question. She also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the land. The case as set up by respondent No. 1 was that in 1357 Fasli (1950 A. D.), the zamindars viz. Girdhar Das and Purshottam Das who were in possession of the land in question duly executed pattas conferring hereditary tenancy rights in the land in her favour; that the said tenancy rights were confirmed by virtue of the decrees passed by the competent revenue courts in suits brought by her under Sections 59 and 61 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (U. P. Act No. XVII of 1939) (hereinaf
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top