DEO NANDAN AND ANR. versus RAM SARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 09-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DEO NANDAN AND ANR. 
v. 
RAM SARAN AND ORS. 
MARCH 9, 2000 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
U.P. 'Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950-Sections 134 
and 137-Sirdar of Land applied for bhumidari certificr;ite and execured sale 
deed on same day-Bhumidari certificate granted after death of applicant-
Widow re-sold the land-Trial Court held first sale deed invalid-Lower 
Appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that certificate would relate back 
to date of application-High Court reversed the order and held first sale deed 
invalid-On appeal, Held, rights stand acquired when revenue contemplated 
under the Section is deposited-Issue of certificate immaterial as declaration 
takes effect from date of deposit of revenue since doctrine of relation back 
incorporated in Amendment Act 21 of 1962. 
The sirdar of the land in question applied to be declared a bhumidar 
under Section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 
1950. A sale deed was executed on the same day after making the applica-
tion. He died before the grant of bhumidari certificate under Section 137 of 
the Act. His widow sold the land to the respondent before the bhumidari 
certificate was issued with effect from the date of application. 
Trial court declared the first sale deed invalid as the seller had not 
been declared bhumidar at that time. The lower appellate court held the 
first sale deed valid as the certificate granted would relate back to the date 
of application. High Court in second appeal held the first sale deed to be 
invalid as no right had been acquired by the seller on the date of applica-
tion. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : 1. Section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act clearly specifies the date with effect from which the rights 
would stand acquired, which is when the amount contemplated by it is 
deposited. This clearly obviates the uncertainty of the point of time when 
H 
209 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the title is transferred by fixing the date as being the one when the amooot 
is deposited. It would be immaterial as to when the declaration under 
Section 137 ·is made because that declaration must necessarily take effect 
from the date when the amount is de~ted. [213-F-H] 
2. Before amendment in 1962, Section 137(2) of the Act provided 
B 
that it is only upon the grant of certificate under Section 137(1)·that the 
sirdar shall from the date thereof become or be deemed to be a bhilmidar 
of the holding or the share ilr respect of which tire certificate has been 
granted. The amendment of Section 137(2) by the Amendmen~ Act 21 of 
1962 brought it in line with Section 134. The two provisions read together 
C 
clearly provide that as and when the certificate under Section 137 is 
granted, it must relate back and be effective from the date on which the 
D 
E 
F 
G 
· amount referred to in Section 134(1) has been deposited. (214-A-C] 
Banshidhar v. Smt. Dhirajadlwri. and Ors., (1971) AU. L.J. 937; Mobin 
Khan v. Chunnu Khan tmd Ors., (1981) AU. L.J. 402 and Raglumandan Singh 
and Another v. Vashwant Singh, (-1978) Revenue Decisions 183, overruled. 
3. When a certificate is issued under Section 137 of the Act, it in fact 
recognises the position as on the date when the application was made and 
the payment contemplated under Section 134(1) was deposited. The cer-
tificate will have a retrospective effect and would relate back to the date 
of the application. There was nothing ~o prevent the revenue authorities 
from allowing the applicati9n filed under Section 134(1) on the day when 
it was presented. The underlying intention of the legislature is"that as and 
when the said application is accepted and order is passed under Section 
137, it must relate back to the date when the application was filed. The 
doctrine of relation back has been incorporated in Sections 134 and 137 of 
the Act. [214-E-H] 
Cl\lll., APPELLAIB JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 4966 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.82 of the Allahabad High 
Court S.A. No. 2473 of 1970. 
Prem Prasad Juneja, S.P. Juneja and P.S. Jha for the Appellants. 
T.N. Singh and B.M. Sharma for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DEO NANDAN v. RAM SARAN [KIRPAL, J.] 
211 
KIRPAL J. The question involved in this case pertains to the 
A 
interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
La

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