LexBABU NOORUL HASAN KHAN versus RAM PRASAD SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r
I
•
{
977
BABU NOORUL HASAN KHAN
v.
RAM PRASAD SINGH & ORS.
October 18, 1979
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Secs. 11.
12, 13(1) & 13(2)-Scope of.
The appellants and others were the Zan1indars of a village in which certain
1ands were given on Theka to the Respondent and others on 6th March, 1948,
the Zarnindari having vested on 30th June. 19.52.
Disputes arose between tlie
A
appellants and the respondents <luring the penden.cy of proceedings under the
('!'.
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellants and others claimed the
plots in dispute being in their exclusive Sir and Khudkast would be deemed to
have been settled with them by the State on the Abolition of Zan1indari and
their nan1e should be recorded as Bhoomida.rs thereof.
Respondent and others
on the other hand claimed they had become the Sirdars of the plots in dispute
and resisted the claims of the Zan1indurs.
The dispute gave rise to the question
of title.
The Civil Judge sent the matter for decision to nn Arbitrator <tppointed
D
under the AC\, The Arbitrator held the respondents to be the Sirdars of the
plots in quest!~"· The appellants filed objections against the a\vard before the
Civil Judge \Vito allowed the objections, set aside the award and ren1itted back
the award for reconsideration.
Appcnls were taken to the Additional District
Judge who disagreed with the Civil Judge but affirmed the order of remand.
Both sides filed separate revisions before the High Court, the revision of Res~
pondents \Vas allowed and dismissed those of the appellants.
The only point
E
argued was whether Respondent and others have been rightly held to be the
Sirdars of the plots in question or whether the ex-landlords haq become the
Bhoomidars.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : That a Thekcdar of an Estate ceases to have any right to hold or
possess any lan::l in such Estate with effect from_ the date of its vesting.
Thi~
is what has been provided in sub-section (1) of section 13.
But it is subject
to the exceptions-viz .. one, the provisions
contained in section 12 and
the
other engrafted in sub~ection (2) of section 13. There is no dispute between
the parties that the land in possession of the Thekedars on the date of vesting
WU either covered by section 12(1) or section 13(2)(a). The land admittedly
wae: the Sir or Khu<lkasht. of the lessor namely the Zamindars.
If such a laild
was in the personal cultiYation of a person on the 1st May, 1950 as a Thekedar
thereof and if the Theka was made with a vieW to the cultivation of the ianG
by such Tbekcdars personally then because of the non-obstante clause occurring
in sub-section (I) of section 12 of the Act the Thekedar would be deemed to
be a hereditary tenant of the land entitled to hold as such and liable to pay
rent at hereditary rates.
If, ho,wever, fhe land was in personal cultivation of
the Thekedar merely as a Thek~dar appointed to collect rent from other tenants
and incidentally allowed to cultivate the~ Sir or Khudkasht land of the lessor
then he will be a mere asami in accordance with section 13(2)(a) oflhe Act.
The Arbitrator on a consideration of the theka document found that the theka
8-743SCl/79
F
G
H
8
978
SUPREME COURT.REPORTS
!1980] l S.C.R.
was made ·with a view to cultivation of the land by the Thekedar personally.
The interJ)rctation of the Arbitrator was not such that it could enable the Civil
ludgc to take the view that' there \Vas
an error of law apparent on the, face
nf the record.
On the other hand it appears to us that the interpretation put
by the Arbitrator was correct. There is a subtle but clear dividing line between
the two types of cases one falling under section 12 ( l ) of the Act and the other
con1ing withjn the ambit of section 13 (_2) (a).
The High Court wa5 right in
its vie'.'·' that the A\vard of the Arbitrator \Vas not fit to be interfered with.
[980 G-H. 981 A-Dl
•
"'
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION : Civil Appeal
No. 1951 of
'..--
1969.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated
C
7-1-69 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 506-510
D
and 548-552/65.
I. P. Goyal and S. K. Jain for the Appellant.
R. K. Garg, V. I. Francis and D. K. Garg for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judg-
ment of the Allahabad High CourExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.