BUDHAN SINGH & ANR. versus NABI BUX & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 20-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

10 
BUDHAN SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
NABI BUX & ANR. 
Augus~ 20, 1969 
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 1 of 
1951), s. 9-'Held', meaning of-Whether means 'lawfully held'--Cons-
truction of statutes-General legislative intent is to advance justice and 
reason -Interpretation which will have harsh or ridiculous effect must be. 
avoided-Ryot leaving residential building during 
communal 
riots-In 
his c.bsence landlord entering on land and constructing new building in 
place of tenants' building-Tenant returning--Tenant whether entitled to 
ne1v building under s. 9'. 
The respondents being Ryots of the appellants were granted over sixty 
years 11go a village site by the ancestors of the appellants on which they 
built their residential houses. 
During the 1947 riots the respondents in 
order to seek safety fled from the village temporarily and came back in 
1949. 
They found that their residential buildings on the aforesaid site 
had been demolished and that in their place the appellants had raised a cow-
shed. The appe!lants refused to give back possession of the site and building 
to the respondents whereupon on January 9, 1951 the respondents filed a 
suit for possession. The appellants based their defence on the provisions 
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 1 of 
1951) which came into force on January 26, 1951. According to s. 4 
of the Act, with effect from the notified date. i.e. July 1, 1952, all Estates 
became vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh: The lands and buildings enu· 
merated' in ss. 6 and 9 were however settled on the persons who 'held' them. 
The contention of the appellants was that they 'held' the buildings on the 
relevant date and therefore the buildings were deemed to be settled on them 
by the State Government. 
In the A!lahabad High Court there was con· 
flict of opinion as to the meaning of the word 'held' in s. 9. 
In Pheku 
Chamar's case a Division Bench of the Court held that the word 'held' in 
s. 9 connotes the existence of a right or title in the holder. However in 
Bharat's case another Division Bench of the Court declined to fo!low Phekhu 
Clzanw.r's case arid came to the conclusion that the legislature, used \vide 
language in s. 9 and it covers the case of buildings belonging to persons 
who constructed them whether lawfully or unlawfully. When the present 
case came up in second appeal before the High Court it was referred to a 
Full Bench. The majority of judges adopted the view taken in Phekhu 
Chanzar's case and decided against the appellants; the dissenting 
judge 
took the view that since the buildings constructed by the respondents did 
not exist on the date of vesting they were not entitled to the, benefit of s. 
9. In appeal to this Court by certificate, 
HELD : ( 1) Though in fact the vesting of the Estate and the deemed 
settlement of some rights in respect of certain classes of lands or buildings 
included in the Estate took place simultaneously, in law the two must be 
treated as different transactions; first there was a vesting of the Estates in 
the State absolutely and free of all encumbrances. 
Then followed 
the 
deemed settlement by the State of some rights with the persons mentioned 
in ss. 6 and 9. 
Therefore in law it would not be correct to say that what 
vested in the State are only those interests not coming within ss. 
6 
or 9. [13 B-C) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BUDHAN SINGH v. NAB! BUX (Hegde, ]. ) 
11 
Rana. Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. Allahabad, [1962J 2 
S.C.R. 441 and Shivashankar Prasad Shah & Ors. v. Vaikunth Nath Singh 
& Ors., C.A. No. 368/66 decided on 3-7-1969, referred to. 
(ii) 
It was unfortunate that the Division Bench in Bharaf s 
case 
should have thought it proper to sit in judgment over the correctness of a 
decision rendered by a Bench of co-Ordinate jurisdiction. 
Judicial pro-
priety requires that if a bench of a High Court is unable to agree with 
the decision already rendered by another co-ordinate bench of the same 
High Court the question should be referred to a larger bench. Otherwise 
the decisions of High Courts will not only lose respect in the eyes of the 
public, it will also make the task of the subordinate courts difficult. [15 El 
(iii) Justice and reason constitute the great general legislative intent 
in every piece of legislation. Consequently where the suggested construc-
tion operates harshly, ridiculous

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