BEHARILAL AND ANR. versus SMT. BHURI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 05-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BEHARILAL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SMT. BHURI DEVI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 5, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Mandi Committee-Constitution for sale of agricultural 
produc~Property acquired by Government-Plot allotted to appellants-On 
payment of consideration by Appellants Patta alld possession granted to 
him-Appellants raised constmction thereon-Subsequently Patta granted to 
C 
him cancelled and allotment made to respondents-Held cancellation of patta 
granted to appellants and allotment of same in favour respondent was bad ill 
law. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : 
Order 22-Rule <f-Appeal-Abatement of-Failure to bring legal rep-
resentatives oil record-Appeal against allotment of patta-Death of original 
al/ottee-His estate represented by his widow and daughtel'-()n demise of 
widow her daughter being already on record represented the estate of her 
mother and father-Held in such circumstances appeal was not abated. 
Order I Rule 13--Failure to implead necessary party-Appellant 
granted patta of /and-Subsequently patta cancelled and granted in favour of 
respondents-Suit filed by appellant-Omission to implead the Government 
or Mandi Committee as a co-defendant-Held not vitiated by Order 1 Rule 
13-Held suit need not be dismissed for non-joinder. 
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi [1995] 2 SCC 326, 
referred to. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Alticle 299. 
D 
E 
F 
Land-Grant of patt<>-Failure to comply with provisions of Article G 
299-Effect of-Agriculture Produce Committe~Al/otment of land 
by-Rules made for grant of patta-Tehsi/dar and Chairman of Committee 
authorised to grant patta-Grant of patta after receipt of consideratioit-Gran-
tee put in possession-Cancellation of patta-He/d invalid-Held though the 
contract was not executed strictly in conformity with Article 299( 1) of the H 
555 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A Constitution but it was in conformity with the Rules approved by the 
Rajpramukh-The co11tract was not voi(}-The possession delivered to the 
appellant is valid in law. 
Nair Service Society Ltd. v. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander & Ors., [1968) 
3 SCR 163; Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar, Parashram & Ors., 
B [1954] SCC 817; Mis. Davecos Gtllments Factory v. State of Rajastha11, AIR 
(1971) SC 141; M. Mohamma v. Union of India, AIR (1982) Born. 443; 
Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, [1964) 3 SCR 164, referred to. 
Krislmji Nilktlllt v. Secretary of State, AIR (1937) Born. 449; Secretary 
C of State v. Bhagwandas, AIR (1938) Born. 168; Devi Prasad Sri Krish11a 
Prasad Ltd. v. Secretary of State, AIR (1941) All. 377; Secretary of State v. 
0. T. Sarin & Company !LR II Lah. 375; J.K. Gas Plant Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. The 
J(j11g Emperor, .(1947) F.C.R. 141; 171e Collector of Masulipatllam v. Cavaly 
Venkata Narrainapah 8 MIA 529, cited. 
D 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : Section 6. 
Suit for possessiolt-Maintainability a11d limitation period for-Appel-
lant granted patta of land under rules-f'ossessio11 also delivered to 
him-Cancel/atio11 of patta-<Jrant to respondent-Held appellant's suit was 
E maintainable--Respondent initiated proceedi11gs u11der Section 145 Cr. 
P.C.-Proceedings pe11ding for a lonq time-Thereafter revision dismissed by 
High Court-High Court gave liberty to appellant to file suit-Suit filed 
immediately after the proceedings came to a tem1inus-Held in substance suit 
was one under Section 6. 
F 
Practice and Procedure--Raisi11g fresh plea at the appellate stage-Per-
missibility of 
Nirod Baran Banerjee v. Dy. Commissioner of Hazaribagh, [1980) 3 
SCC 51; Pavani Sridhara Rao v. Government of A.P., AIR (1996) SC 1334, 
G referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.80 of the Rajasthan High 
H Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 147 of 1969. 
BEHARJLALv. BHURIDEVI 
557 
D.D. Thakur, S.K. Jain and A.P. Dhamija for the Appellants. 
B.R. Naik, K.B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by speciaI leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, made on March 28, 
1980 in LPA No. 147/69. 
A 
B 
The undisputed facts are that the Government constituted a Mandi 
Committee duly nominating the members, at Neem-ka-Thana for sale of C 
agriculture produce. The property was acquired by the Government. Al-
lotments were made for construction of shops by traders. Plot Nos.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.