1957 Supreme(All) 144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. L. Chaturvedi and Mehrotra, JJ.
BUDHU SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 1052 to 1060 Of 1955
Decided On : 05/03/1957

The Assistant Collector and the Commissioner, while acting under the Acquisition of Privileges Act, are not Courts whose decisions may have the force of res judicata in proceedings before regular Courts where the same question again arises.

Headnote:

ACQUISITION OF PRIVILEGES ACT - SECTIONS 3, 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 4, 6, 7, 7-A, 12, 13, 14 - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SECTIONS 3, 10(2), 157(2), 16, 18, 20 - U.P. TENANCY ACT - SECTION 63 - RES JUDICATA - REVENUE COURTS - JURISDICTION - DECLARATION - ADHIVASI RIGHTS - Bhumidhari RIGHTS - TENANCY RIGHTS - LAND REFORMS - VESTING OF RIGHTS - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - RELIEF - MOULDING OF RELIEF - APPELLATE COURTS - POWERS - LEGISLATIVE CHANGES - DISCRETION OF REVENUE COURTS - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.

Fact of the Case:

Ten suits were filed under Section 63 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for a declaration that the plots were the zamindar's khudkasht plots, that the petitioners were not the tenants of these plots, and that they were all in her possession. The petitioners denied that the plots were khudkasht plots of Ahmadi Begam and set up tenancy rights in different plots in themselves. Ahmadi Begam died during the pendency of the suits and the 2nd respondent was impleaded as her legal representative. The suits were filed in the year 1945, but they remained pending for a long time in the trial Court. During their pendency, the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act of 1949 came into force, and the defendants in the ten suits, who are the petitioners before the court, deposited ten times the rent of the plots that they were claiming, and obtained certificates under Section 6 of the Act. The certificates were obtained by the petitioners in September and October, 1949. The 2nd respondent then filed applications under Section 12 of the Acquisition of Privileges Act for cancellation of the certificates. The Assistant Collector allowed the applications and cancelled the certificates but an appeal by the petitioners to the Additional Commissioner took a different view. By his judgment dated 3rd July, 1951, he allowed the appeals and dismissed the applications made by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of the certificates. The copies of this judgment were filed in the ten suits under Section 63 of the U.P. Tenancy Act pending before the judicial Officer. On the 1st July 1952 the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Act No. 1 of 1951, came into force. The Judicial Officer decided these ten suits on the 1st June 1953. He held that the plots in dispute were the khudkasht plots of the 2nd respondent, and the petitioners were not the tenants of any of the plots, nor were they in possession of the plots. The petitioners filed appeals against the decrees in the ten suits, and the Additional commissioner affirmed the findings of the Judicial Officer and dismissed the appeals on the 13th august 1954. The petitioners then filed ten second appeals before the Board of Revenue and the board has dismissed all these appeals by its judgment dated 30th August, 1955. The petitioners now pray for the quashing of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, mentioned above and for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Board directing it, to decide the second appeals in accordance with law.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Assistant Collector and the Commissioner, while acting under the Acquisition of Privileges Act, are not Courts whose decisions may have the force of res judicata in proceedings before regular Courts where the same question again arises. 2. The officers appointed under the Acquisition of Privileges Act were not tribunals of competent jurisdiction to decide the question of status of the parties before them. 3. The revenue courts were not bound to decide the question of whether the petitioners had acquired any rights under the Zamindari Abolition Act. 4. The declaration claimed by the plaintiffs in a suit purely for a declaration, need not take into account the subsequent legislation. 5. The petitioners have not acquired rights under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Zamindari Abolition Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 3rd July 1951 dismissing the application of the 2nd respondent for the cancellation of the certificates, filed under Section 12 of the Acquisition of Privileges Act has the force of res judicata in so far as the question whether the petitioners were tenants of the plots was concerned. 2. Whether the petitioners have acquired rights under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Zamindari Abolition act, and the revenue Courts should have decided this question.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Assistant Collector and the Commissioner, while acting under the Acquisition of Privileges Act, are not Courts whose decisions may have the force of res judicata in proceedings before regular Courts where the same question again arises, because they are not tribunals of competent jurisdiction to decide the question of status of the parties before them. 2. The revenue courts were not bound to decide the question of whether the petitioners had acquired any rights under the Zamindari Abolition Act, because in a suit purely for a declaration, the declaration claimed by the plaintiffs need not take into account the subsequent legislation. 3. The petitioners have not acquired rights under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, because they have not proved that they were recorded as occupants of the land in the record revised under chapter IV, of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or corrected by an officer specially appointed in this behalf by the State Government, and also that they were in possession of the land on the date of vesting, or that they were recorded in a record of rights prepared under Clause (e) of Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act for the year 1356 F, and also that they were in possession of the land on the date of vesting, or that they have acquired the declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition of Privileges Act and are persons belonging to the class mentioned in Section 3 or Sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of that Act, or that they were recorded as occupants of the land in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 F and the land is of a description mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (b) of Section 20.

Final Decision: All the petitions are dismissed with costs in favour of Iqbal Ahmad respondent.