Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 1172
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.S.M.Quadri : Y.K.Sabharwal
Kali Prasad
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation
Case No. : 2780 of 1984
Date of Decision : 7/26/00
Advocates Appeared: Jha Anil Kumar : Sandd Seema : Swarup Pareena : Swarup Parveen : Swarup Pramod
The court ruled that asamis cannot acquire Sirdari rights via Section 209 as it applies only to those without title. It further held that the 1958 Amendment Act is retrospective and that civil court findings on jurisdictional facts remain binding despite limitations under Section 331.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 16, 19, 191, 209, 210, 331 and Schedule II - U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952 - Section 3 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1958 - Section 1(2) - Acquisition of Sirdari rights - Section 209 contemplates the filing of a suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and does not postulate the eviction of asamis - Persons recorded as asamis cannot claim to have perfected Sirdari rights by adverse possession or by the failure of the landowner to file an ejectment suit under Section 209, as they cannot approbate and reprobate regarding their status as asamis. (Para 8)
(B) U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1958 - Retrospective effect - Where Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act provides that it shall be deemed to have come into force from a date prior to its enactment, the provisions are retrospective in nature and become part of the original Act from its inception. (Paras 10-11)
(C) U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 331 and Schedule II - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - The bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 331 is limited to specific reliefs mentioned in Schedule II - A finding recorded by a civil court on a question of jurisdictional fact is binding on the parties to the suit. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The dispute relates to the nature of rights held by occupants over certain plots of land. The occupants were recorded as asamis. After the death of the recorded holder, suits for declaration of rights and ejectment were filed. The district court set aside the trial court's decree on the grounds that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to eject asamis. In subsequent consolidation proceedings, the occupants claimed Sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession and the failure of the respondents to file ejectment suits within the limitation period. The consolidation authorities and the High Court held that the occupants continued to be asamis and had not acquired Sirdari rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the occupants were asamis, Section 209 and the consequential provisions of Section 210 were not attracted. The court also affirmed that the 1958 Amendment Act was retrospective based on the clear language of Section 1(2). Furthermore, it was held that the civil court's finding that the occupants were asamis was a finding on a jurisdictional fact and was therefore binding.
Issues: 1. Whether asamis can acquire Sirdari rights through adverse possession or the failure of the landowner to file a suit for ejectment under Section 209. 2. Whether the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1958, has retrospective effect. 3. Whether findings of a civil court on jurisdictional facts are binding despite the bar under Section 331.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 209 applies to occupants without title, not to asamis; thus, the failure to eject an asami under that section does not result in the acquisition of Sirdari rights. A statute that is deemed to have come into force from a previous date is retrospective. The bar under Section 331 does not extend to all declarations and does not negate the binding nature of an established jurisdictional fact.
Result: The appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
(1) THIS appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous (Writ) No. 3820 of 1969 on December 23, 1981.
(2) THE controversy in this appeal relates to the nature of right which Kali Prasad and others (the appellants) are holding the plots in question under the U.P. Zamindari, Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for shortthe U.P. Zamindari Act).
(3) THE appeal relates to one of the two sets of plots in village Pakar, Tappa Pachauri, Pargana Hasanpur Maghar, Tehsil Sardar, P.O. Madanpur, District Gorakhpur one set consisted of 12 plots and the other consisted of 13 plots. In both these sets of plots, the appellants were recorded as occupants along with some other persons in different combinations.
(4) HERE, we are concerned with the set of 13 plots, namely, plot nos. 131, 132, 388,465,471, 758, 760, 855, 893, 894, 895, 896 and 897. Both those sets of plots were combined and joint entries were made in revenue records. Appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for correction of the entries. Appeal Nos. 784 and 785 relate to correction of entries in the said plots. Smt. Partapi was Khatedar and respondents 3 and 4 were asamis of these plots.
(5) AFTER the death of Smt. Partapi on October 31, 1952, Ram Dulare (father of respondents 3 and 4) filed two civil suits in the court of District Munsiff claiming declaration of bhumidari rights and ejectment of the appellants and others. Though, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit in respect of 13 plots in question also, yet, on appeal by the appellants, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction and ordered that the plaint be returned.
(6) NOW reverting to the appeals before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), he found, inter alia, that Smt. Partapi was the last Khatedar and the appellants were in adverse possession of the said plots. Despite institution of civil suits in 1954 by Ram Dulare, they could not be ejected from the plots and, therefore, they were entitled to Sirdari rights. Accordingly, he apportioned the plots, allotting shares to each one of them by his order dated August 22, 1968.
(7) THAT order gave rise to filing of five revision petitions, by respondents 3 and 4 herein, before the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Gorakhpur. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) having considered the judgment of the District Judge noted that the claim of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground of being sisters sons of the last male tenure holder (Bal Karan) of the disputed land in respect of which Smt. Partapi was recorded as Khatedar, was not denied. What was argued before him was that respondents 3 and 4 being sisters sons of Bal Karan, were not entitled to the land after the death of Smt. Partapi. It was, however, admitted that the appellants herein were in possession of the land 1359 F but it was argued that they were simply asamis and they had not acquired any Sirdari rights. The contention of the appellants herein before the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was that even if they were held to be asamis, as they were not ejected within the period of limitation by filing a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Act, they acquired Sirdari rights. The alternative submission was that they had perfected their right by adverse possession. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) took the view that Sections 16, 19 and 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Act do not apply to the case and that the appellants continued to be asamis under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act XXXI of 1952, as such they cannot claim to be Sirdaris on the ground that the said respondents did not file any suit for their ejectment. In his opinion, as no period of limitation is prescribed for such cases, a suit can still be filed for their ejectment. The Deputy Director (Consolidatio
