1975 Supreme(All) 214

Allahbad High Court
YASHODANANDAN,K.C.AGARWAL
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Ram Sri - Respondent
Decided On : 05/23/1975

Headnote:

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Etawah, dismissing the suit. The suit was filed initially by the State of U. P. and Gaon Sabha, Mauza Vedpura for the reliefs of declaration that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were the owners in possession of the plots situated in Mauza Vedpura, Pargana and district Etawah, and permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs, in the alternative, also claimed that if they were not found in possession over the plots in dispute, including the trees standing thereon, they might be given possession over the same excluding buildings. The suit was filed with regard to the following plots mentioned in the Chart given below. The said Chart would indicate the area of these plots separately as well as their character, as mentioned in the plaint. The State of U. P. appealed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Etawah, dismissing the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Etawah, dismissing the suit. The suit was filed initially by the State of U. P. and Gaon Sabha, Mauza Vedpura for the reliefs of declaration that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were the owners in possession of the plots situated in Mauza Vedpura, Pargana and district Etawah, and permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs, in the alternative, also claimed that if they were not found in possession over the plots in dispute, including the trees standing thereon, they might be given possession over the same excluding buildings. The suit was filed with regard to the following plots mentioned in the Chart given below. The said Chart would indicate the area of these plots separately as well as their character, as mentioned in the plaint.

Finding of the Court:

The appeal succeeds in part and is allowed partly. The suit of the plaintiff appellant in respect of plots Nos. 102 and 104 is dismissed, whereas with regard to plots Nos. 101, 103, 105, 199, 200, 201, 204 and 205 the suit is decreed in respect of the areas mentioned in the Judgment. The judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside to the above extent and the same is modified to the extent noted above. The map 43-Ka-2 showing the necessary details shall form part of the decree. The plaintiff appellant will be entitled to receive costs of this appeal from the defendant, whereas the costs of the suit shall be borne by the parties themselves.

Issues: 1. Whether the State of U. P. had any right or interest in the land involved in the present suit, having given the same to the Gaon Sabha, that is, plaintiff No. 2, by means of a notification issued under Section 117 of the Act, therefore, the appeal filed by the State of U. P. was not maintainable. 2. Whether the land in suit was the cattle market site of the defendant and should be deemed to have been settled with her under Section 9 of the Act as buildings and land appurtenant thereto. 3. Whether the order passed by the Bar Council of India was without jurisdiction as the appeal filed by the Advocate General before the said body was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government does have an interest in the property despite the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Act. Any decision given by a court in which the State Government is a party is bound to injure or prejudice the interest of the State Government. 2. The word "vest" does not have a fixed connotation or meaning. It may vest in title, or it may vest in possession, or it may vest in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it may have been used in a particular piece of legislation. 3. The mere change in the territorial limits of a Gaon Sabha by transferring particular areas from the territorial limits of the Gaon Sabha to the territories of any other local authority (including a Town Area) would not automatically divest the Gaon Sabha of the things specified in clauses (i) to (vi) of Sub-section (1) (Like land, forests, fisheries, hats, bazars, etc.). The rights in such things would stand divested transferred only if a notification in the Gazette declaring such divesting, and vesting in the Town Area, is published.

Final Decision: The appeal succeeds in part and is allowed partly. The suit of the plaintiff appellant in respect of plots Nos. 102 and 104 is dismissed, whereas with regard to plots Nos. 101, 103, 105, 199, 200, 201, 204 and 205 the suit is decreed in respect of the areas mentioned in the Judgment. The judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside to the above extent and the same is modified to the extent noted above. The map 43-Ka-2 showing the necessary details shall form part of the decree. The plaintiff appellant will be entitled to receive costs of this appeal from the defendant, whereas the costs of the suit shall be borne by the parties themselves.