DHARAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. versus PREM SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 05-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
DHARAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
v.
PREM SINGH (D) THR. LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 516 of  2009)
FEBRUARY 05, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Suit:
Suit for permanent injunction – On the basis of Sirdari rights
in favour of their predecessor-in-interest in respect of suit property
(i.e. Plot No. 719) – Case of defendants was that predecessor-in-
interest of the plaintiff being the caretaker of the  property of original
owner was in possession of her entire property including the suit
property after the death of the original owner – Entire property
including the suit property was escheated to the State as the original
owner died leaving no heir – Collector ordered for release of the
property of the original owner from the possession of predecessor-
in-interest of the plaintiff – However, he was allowed to remain in
possession of the land to the extent of 4 Nali – Predecessor-in-
interest handed over the possession of the entire land of original
owner except 4 Nali 1 Muthi to the State – Defendants were give the
suit property in exchange of their property which was acquired by
the State – During the record operations, predecessor-in-interest of
the property was shown in possession of the plots which was
escheated to the State  – Assistant Record Officer passed an order
directing deletion of the name of predecessor-in-interest from the
record on the basis of a report that the name was recorded
surreptitiously by the record officials – Despite that the name of
predecessor-in-interest continued in the record as occupant of the
land –  Pursuant to Zamindari Abolition Act, Patwari made entry in
the Khata/Khatauni giving status of Asami and right of Sirdar to the
predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff – Trial Court decreed the suit –
High Court in appeal, dismissed the suit – On appeal, held: In view
of order of the Assistant Record Officer directing deletion of the
name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff as occupant of
the land, he could not have been held to be recorded occupant
within meaning of s. 10(e) of Zamindari Abolition Act – Hence,
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 13
13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
Asami rights could not have been obtained and consequently he
could not have been treated as Sirdar –  Patwari was also not a
competent authority to make such entry in Khata Khatauni  –  It is
proved that the land of the original owner was escheated to the
State; the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had released the
land from his possession and that the suit land was given by the
State to the defendants in exchange – Hence, claim of plaintiff by
virtue of entry made by Patwari cannot be accepted  – Suit is liable
to be dismissed – Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1960  – s. 10 (e).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Asami/Sirdari right on Plot No.719 in the suit was
claimed on the ground that the father of the appellant
(predecessor-in-interest) was recorded in possession. Plot No.719
along with other plots was recorded in the name of the original
owner, last tenure holder. The original owner having died without
leaving any legal heirs, her land escheated to State. The Collector
has also passed an order for taking possession of land of the
original owner from the possession of the father of the appellant
except leaving four Nali one Muthi land in his possession. A
document dated 14.05.1956 was recorded in this respect which
was signed by the father of appellant. Plot No.719 was not included
in four Nali which was left with the father of appellant. [Para 6][22-
C-D]
2. The right of the father of the appellant was sought to be
claimed in accordance with Section 10 sub-clause (e) of the
Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1960. For acquiring right under Section 10 sub-clause (e) it
has to be established that person claiming Asami right was
recorded as occupant of land. The High Court in its judgment
noticed that the record operation in the village in question was
undertaken between the period from 1952 to 1963. In the record
operation it was noticed that the name of the father of the appellant
was recorded in possession on some plots including Plot No.719.
A report was submitted that the name of the father of the appellant
had been recorded surreptitiously by the Record Operation
Officials. The report further mentioned that possession of land
has already been taken over and handed over to the Malguzar

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