Back
Manipur High Court
DATTA, J.
Nar Bahadur Gurung
Versus
Anil Krishna Bhattacharya
First Appeal No. 21 of 1956
Decided On : 30-08-1956
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 42 - DECLARATION - TENANT'S RIGHT TO SUE FOR DECLARATION - CONDITIONS - ASSAM LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION, 1886 - RULE 15 - SETTLEMENT OF LAND - RIGHT OF OCCUPANT - CONTINGENT RIGHT - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 42 - DECLARATION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - TRANSACTION BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES - RECOGNITION BY GOVERNMENTS - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, four in number, filed a suit for declaration in respect of about 70 paris (about 175 acres) of land situated at Pangei village, claiming that the patta granted to Hafiz Fateh Shah and his brother was against the customary law of the State, namely, that no one shall hold more than 10 paris of land without the special permission of the State Government. The plaintiffs alleged that they and other occupants of the land were tenants of Hafiz and his brother and had been in cultivating possession of the land for the last about 60 years, paying rent (loushal) to them and on their death to their heirs. The plaintiffs also claimed that the sale transaction of the suit land between defendant No. 6 and defendants Nos. 1 to 5, on the strength of a power of attorney which had not been duly proved, was fraudulent and collusive.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declarations claimed. The court found that the customary law that no one could hold more than 10 paris of land without special permission was not proved and in any case it was ultra vires the Constitution of India. The court also found that the Council Resolution No. 13 dated 7-9-1949 did not actually confiscate the land and the question of that resolution being ultra vires did not arise. The court further found that the order conveyed in the Secretariat letter dated 24-5-1952 (Ext. 12) that the land be not confiscated was valid and operative. The court also held that the plaintiffs were estopped from questioning the title of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and had no locus standi to question mutation or transfer in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 or the order of the Government not to confiscate the land. The court also found that the plaintiffs had no cause of action as they were not entitled to claim the declaration, because the conditions requisite under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act were wanting in the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the customary law that no one could hold more than 10 paris of land without special permission was valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the Council Resolution No. 13 dated 7-9-1949 confiscated the land and whether it was ultra vires the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the order conveyed in the Secretariat letter dated 24-5-1952 (Ext. 12) that the land be not confiscated was valid and operative? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were estopped from questioning the title of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and had locus standi to question mutation or transfer in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 or the order of the Government not to confiscate the land? 5. Whether the plaintiffs had a cause of action to claim the declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The customary law that no one could hold more than 10 paris of land without special permission was not proved and in any case it was ultra vires the Constitution of India. 2. The Council Resolution No. 13 dated 7-9-1949 did not actually confiscate the land and the question of that resolution being ultra vires did not arise. 3. The order conveyed in the Secretariat letter dated 24-5-1952 (Ext. 12) that the land be not confiscated was valid and operative. 4. The plaintiffs were estopped from questioning the title of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and had no locus standi to question mutation or transfer in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 or the order of the Government not to confiscate the land. 5. The plaintiffs had no cause of action as they were not entitled to claim the declaration, because the conditions requisite under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act were wanting in the case.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Manipur in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1955, dismissing the plaintiffs claim for declaration in respect of about 70 paris (about 175 acres) of land situated at Pangei village described in detail in Schedule "A" to the plaint. The suit was filed by the four plaintiffs in a representative capacity on behalf of other tenants also under the provision of order 1 rule 8 of the C. P. C.
2. It appears that when the British took over Manipur State after the rebellion of 1891 they granted this land and some other lands to one Hafiz Fateh Shah and his brother - Sheriff Shah, who were from the Punjab in recognition of services rendered during the rebellion and the land was also mutated in their names. Hafiz and his brother, then allowed the plaintiffs or their predecessors and others to re-claim the land and bring it under cultivation. Thus, the plaintiffs including the other occupants have been in cultivating possession of the land as tenants of Hafiz and his brother for the last about 60 years.
They paid rent (loushal) to Hafiz and his brother and on their death to their heirs through one Chand Khan (defendant No. 6) their agent, but no change in the mutation was got affected after the death of Hafiz (which occurred long ago) and his brother (who died in 1920). Some of these heirs also died being succeeded by their heirs, but no action was taken to have the land mutated in the name of the successors.
3. In 1949, the Manipur State Council passed a resolution (Resolution No. 13 dated 7-9-1949 Ext. A/2) that the Patta granted to Hafiz and his brother was against the customary law of the State, namely, that no one shall hold more than 10 paris of land without the special permission of the State Government. They, therefore, directed the Land Revenue Officer to issue notices to all parties concerned to show cause within 30 days from the date of service of the notice, why the patta in respect of land in excess of 10 paris be not cancelled, and if the cause shown be found to be not satisfactory, then to cancel the patta accordingly and to take possession.
4. Notices were accordingly issued and some objections were also received from the heirs of Hafiz, who were then living in Pakistan and from Chand Khan their agent. The matter went on pending without any action for some time and in 1950 the file was submitted to the Chief Commissioner by the Officer concerned with a suggestion that it should be decided by a competent Officer whether the excess land should be confiscated or not in the light of the objection of the Hafiz family. The Chief Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to take action in the matter and to expedite it (see Ext. A/3).
5. On 2-11-1950, the Chief Commissioner passed an order that since the persons in whose names the patta stood were all dead and the heirs had not got the land mutated in their names and Chand Khan, who claimed to be their agent was an interloper, pending decision of the question of confiscation of the land as per Council Resolution No. 13 of 7-9-1949, the Sub-Deputy Collector should take over possession of the entire area and recover the grain rent (loushal). The land thus came under the management of the Government, who also recovered rent from the tenants (see Ext. 6).
6. The Deputy Commissioner on 27-2-52, submitted a report to the Chief Commissioner (Ext. 11) that since the pattadars of the land or their heirs were traceless and no application for mutation had been filed the settlement of the land should be annulled. He further recommended the cancellation of the settlement under rule 26 chapter I Part II of the Assam Land Revenue Manual (which applied to Manipur State) as the settlement was in contravention of the rule that no one will hold more than 10 paris of land.
7. The Secretary to the Government then conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner the following orders of the Government on 24-5-1951 (Ext. 12) :
"I am d
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
