Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 267

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH , JJ.
RAKESH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5040 OF 2008
Decided On : 08-03-2019

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Advocate, Ms. Sushma Verma, Advocate, Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kaliyar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Benefit of a statutory provision shall be applicable to those Sirdars, who were Sirdars on the date when Ordinance was enforced which subsequently became an Act.

Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1977 – Sections 130 and 131 read with Section 73 – Suits for declaration of Bhumidhari rights – Section 73(1) provides that all proceedings for acquisition of Bhumidhari rights under Sections 134 and 135 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as they stood immediately before 28.01.1977 and all proceedings arising therefrom, pending on such date before any court or authority shall abate – By statutory provision (Section 73), all pending applications and proceedings were abated and grant of Bhumidhari rights was contemplated under Sections 130 and 131, which was sought to be inserted by U.P. Ordinance No.1 of 1977 – Benefit of a statutory provision shall be applicable to those Sirdars, who were Sirdars on the date when Ordinance was enforced which subsequently became an Act – On 28.01.1977, vendor was already dead and his legal heirs were mutated in his place, thus, benefit of Ordinance No.1 of 1977 and U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 cannot be availed by vendor so as to validate his sale deed dated 26.11.1974 with regard to Plot Nos. 243 and 503 – High Court committed error in allowing writ petition filed by contesting respondent and decreeing Suit No. 30 of 1978 – Writ petition filed by respondent No.3 questioning decision of Courts below with regard to Suit No.30 of 1978 was not liable to be allowed by High Court – All Courts below including Board of Revenue had taken correct view with regard to Suit No.30 of 1978 filed by respondent – Appeal Partly allowed. (Paras 17 to 22)
       Facts of Case:
       Suits filed praying for declaration of Bhumidhari rights. Trial court dismissed both suits. Two appeals were filed by respondents against judgment of trial court. Additional Commissioner allowed Appeal decreeing suit with regard to Plot with regard to which Sanad was granted, but Additional Commissioner dismissed appeal arising out of Suit. Both appellant and respondent filed second appeal before Board of Revenue against judgment of Additional Commissioner. Board of Revenue vide its judgment dismissed both second appeals.
       Findings of Court:
       Writ petition filed by respondent No.3 questioning decision of Courts below with regard to Suit No.30 of 1978 was not liable to be allowed by High Court. All Courts below including Board of Revenue had taken correct view with regard to Suit No.30 of 1978 filed by respondent.
       Result : Appeal Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 03.03.2006 deciding the two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 16105 of 1983 filed by predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and Writ Petition No. 3020 of 1984 filed by respondent No.4.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding this appeal are:- 2.1 One Pursottam was the Sirdar (a category of tenancy) of agricultural plots Nos. 243, 503 and 1/3rd share in Plot No. 521 situated in Village Pilkhana, District Shahjahanpur. On 25.11.1974, Pursottam deposited 20 times of the land revenue and made an application for grant of Bhumidhar rights in accordance with U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. On 26.11.1974, Pursottam executed a sale deed of the aforesaid three plots in favour of Ajudhi @ Ayodhya. On 23.05.1975, application of Pursottam for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad for plot Nos. 243 and 503 was rejected. A revision application was filed by Pursottam challenging the order dated 23.05.1975. With regard to Plot No. 521, Bhumidhari Sanad was granted in the name of Pursottam by order of Assistant collector on 05.01.1976, before which on 04.12.1975, Pursottam has died.

2.2 By Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (U.P. Ordinance No.1 of 1977), promulgated on 28.01.1977, Bhumidhar with transferable rights were granted to every Sirdar referred to in Sections 130 and 131 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The ordinance No.1 of 1977 was substituted by U.P.Act No.8 of 1977 enforced with effect from 28.01.1977.

2.3 Ajudhi @ Ayodhya filed two suits – Suit No. 30 of 1978 praying for declaration of Bhumidhari Rights in Plot Nos. 243 and 503 and Suit No. 31 of 1978 claiming declaration of Bhumidhari Rights in Plot No. 521 on the basis of sale deed dated 26.11.1974 executed by Pursottam.

2.4 The trial court dismissed both the suits by judgment dated 23.03.1979. Two appeals were filed by respondents against the judgment of trial court. Additional Commissioner allowed Appeal No. 436/6 of 1979 decreeing the suit No. 31 of 1978 with regard to Plot No. 521, with regard to which Sanad was granted, but the Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal No. 435/5 of 1979 arising out of Suit No. 30 of 1978. Both appellant and respondent filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner. Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 18.11.1983 dismissed both the second appeals.

2.5 Parties filed writ petitions against the order of Board of Revenue. Ram Bilas died during the pendency of the writ petition, whose heirs were brought on record. Writ Petition No. 16105 of 1983 was filed by predecessor-in-interest of the appellant whereas Writ Petition No. 3020 of 1984 was filed by respondents. High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 03.03.2006 allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. By judgment of the High Court, Suit No.30 of 1978 also stood decreed. Appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment has come up in this appeal.

3. Shri Pramod Swarup, senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the suits filed by respondent deserves to be dismissed in view of the fact that Pursottam had no right to executed sale deed of Sirdari rights on 26.11.1974. Although, he had submitted an application for Bhumidhari Sanad but he having died on 05.12.1976 before grant of Sanad, Bhumidhari rights shall accrue to his legal heirs and the plaintiffs have no right to be declared as Bhumidhari. He further submits that in any view of the matter, with regard to Plot Nos. 243 and 503, application for Bhumidhari Sanad was rejected on 23.05.1975, hence with regard to aforesaid two plots, Suit No. 30 of 1978 deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ram Sabodh and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consoli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 267

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH , JJ.RAKESH & ORS. – APPELLANTSVersus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5040 OF 2008 Decided On : 08-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTBenefit of a statutory provision shall be applicable to those Sirdars, who were Sirdars on the date when Ordinance was enforced which subsequently became an Act.

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH , JJ.
RAKESH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5040 OF 2008
Decided On : 08-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Benefit of a statutory provision shall be applicable to those Sirdars, who were Sirdars on the date when Ordinance was enforced which subsequently became an Act.