SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(All) 144

SATISHCHANDRA, A.K.KIRTY, HARISWARUP
Banshidhar – Appellant
Versus
Dhirjadhari – Respondent


Advocates:
N.D. Ojha, for Petitioner; M.P. Singh for Respondents.

Judgement

H. SWARUP, J. :- I have had the advantage of going through the proposed judgments of brothers Satish Chandra and A. K. Kirty, I entirely agree with them in the conclusion proposed and the reasons given for the same. I would, however like to add the following paragraph:

Section 134 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act entitled a Sirdar, on fulfilling the conditions mentioned therein, to a declaration that he had acquired, in respect of the land, the rights mentioned in Section 137. i.e. the Bhumidhari rights. Section 137 (1) casts on the Assistant Collector the duty to make the declaration and certify it. The order of the Assistant Collector making the declaration tantamounts to the grant of certificate and the Sirdar must be deemed to acquire Bhumidhari rights upon the passing of the order. The 'sanad' provides only the documentary evidence of the fact that the declaration has been made and certified. The rights accrue on the making and certification of the declaration and do not remain in abeyance till the issuance of the certificate.

2. KIRTY, J. : I fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by my brother Satish Chandra, I, however, desire to add so


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top