BIR SINGH AND ORS. versus PYARE SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 111 · Decided: 06-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BIR SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
PYARE SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 6, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
Rajasthan ?.amindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959-Sections 2, 5, 
29 and 30-?.amindar-Entitlement qf-Khatedari Rights in Khudkasht land 
on abolition of zamindari rights under section 29 of the Act-Held, ?.amindar 
entitled to such rights if he is in possession/occupation of khudkasht land on 
the date of vesting of the estate-Further, if zamindar is not in possession of 
khudkasht land on the date of vesting then such land vests in State-Thus, 
Zamindar not entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of possession of the land 
from any other person-Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 Sections 43(3) and 183. 
One 'C', the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, held zamindari 
rights in respect of the disputed land. It was recorded that 'C' was th~ 
'Khudkasht Kashtkar' of the land. 'C' mortgaged the land with one 'CS' 
the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. It was for the period of ten 
years. After a period of nine years from the date of executing mortgage 
deed, 'C' expired leaving appellants as his legal heirs. After expiry of the 
mortgage period, 'CS' did not hand over possession of the land. The 
appellants filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 43(3) read 
with Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Additional 
District Collector decreed the suit and directed 'CS' to hand over posses-
sion of the land to the appellants who were declared as 'Khatedar Kashtkar'. 
The Revenue authorities upheld the decree by dismissing 'CS's first and 
the second appeals. 'CS' expired during the pendency of the appeal and 
the respondents were substituted as his legal heirs. The aggrieved respond-
ents challenged the order of the Revenue authorities in a writ petition and 
the High Court allowed it. 
In appeal before this Court, appellants contended that after aboli-
tion of the Zamindari right of the appellants under the Rajasthan Zamindari 
and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 the appellants were entitled to retain 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the the land in dispute which was a part of their 'khudkasht' land as 
H 
111 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
recorded in the revenue record. 
The respondent submitted that as the appellants were not in occupa-
tion of the land in dispute on the date the Act came into force they could 
not retain possession of the land, notwithstanding the entry in the revenue 
records showing the land as 'khudkasht'. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. A Zamindar who is in possession/occupation of 
Khudkasht land on the date of vesting of the estate becomes a Khatedar 
tenant on abolition of the Zamindari right under section 29 of the Rajasthan 
Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act. H the Zamindar is not in occupa---
tion of the Khudkasht land on the date of vesting then such 'land' vests in 
the State alongwith the other 'land' subject to the provisions of the Act. In 
respect of such land Zamindar is not entitled to claim any right of posses-
sion and consequently is not entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of 
_possession of the land from any other person. (120-C; E-F] 
Budha v. Amilal, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 41, held applicable. 
1.2. Under Section 29 of the Act a Zamindar becomes a Malik of the 
Khudkasht land in his occupation and he shall be entitled to the rights . 
conferred and all the liabilities imposed on a Khatedar tenant by or under 
the Act. H the Zamindar is not in occupation of the Khudkasht land on the 
date of vesting he is not entitled to claim khat~dari right in the land. The 
scheme behind this provision is that if a Zamindar or Biswedar is in actual 
occupation of cultivable land on the date of abolition of his Zamindari 
right then he should continue to be in possession of such land. (120-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6119 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.94 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B,C.W.P. No. 4159 of 1993. 
Dushant Dave and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellants. 
Sushil K. Jain and A. Mishra for the Respondents. 
-H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-1 
BIR SINGH v. PYARE SINGH [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 
113 
D.P.MOHAPATRA, J. On analysis of the case of the parties and the 
contentions raised on their behalf the question which arises for determination 
is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants can be 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.