FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. versus SEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 13-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' -
> ; 
• r 
,• 
' 
FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. 
A 
v. 
SEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. 
September 13, 1983 
B 
[D. A. DESAI, 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY AND A. VAMDARAJAN, JJ.] 
' 
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954-S.15 read with S: 13\-lnterpretation of-
Persons who cQn be declared Bhumidhars.-Declaration of Bhumidhars mandatory 
-In spite of delay in or absence of declaration the tenant entitled to acquire 
C 
.Bhumidhari rights acquires those rights. 
' 
A certain extent of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. 
1894. The acquired land included a piece of land which had been mortgaged 
by its owners and let out by the mortgagee to a tenant who in turn had let 
·out to the first respondent in both the appeals. The Collector awarded com-
pensation to the land-owners. The first respondent objected to the award on 
the ground that "since he had acquired the status of Bhumidhar under the 
Delhi Land Ri.:forms Act, 1954 he was entitled to receive the entire compen-
sation. On an application made by the first respondent tte Collector made a 
refecence to the District Judge. In the meantime in disposing of an application 
under s. 15 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act made by the land-owners for 
redemption of mortgage, the Revenue Assistant declared that the first respon· 
dent was Bhumidhar of the land which was in bis possession as sub-lessee with . 
effect from the date of commencement of that Act. The Additional District 
Judge held that the first Resp0ndent was entitled to the entire co1npensation. 
The appeal filed by the land-owners wa's dismissed by the High Court. In 
this appeal the land-owners submitted that since they had redeemed the 
mortgage by resort to the provisions contained in s. 15(1) of the Delhi Land 
Reforms Act, they had become Bhumidhars 'under s. · 15(2) of that Act and 
were, therefore, entitled to the entire compensa~ion as Bhumidhars which Was 
rightly paid by the Collector. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : The first reSpondent is entitled to the Bhul:nidhar's portion of 
compensation. [937 G] 
Section 15(2) <lfthe Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 says that if the 
Proprietor mottgagor applies for redemption of the mortgage under sub-sec. (1) 
of sec. 15, he shall be declared as Bhumidhar only in respect of the mortgaged 
area which was h~ the personal cultivation of the mortgagee. In the present 
case, before the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the mortgagee 
Ram Swarup ha<,i l~t the lan<,t in question ·to <;>ne lnder Singh and he in turn 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11983) 3 s.c.a. 
had sub-let the land to the first respondent Sewa Ram and he was in possession 
of the same ·on the date of commencement of that Act. ThCrefore, the appel .. 
!ants in Civil Appeal 1195 of 1970 as owners could not have become Bhumidhars 
in respect of that portion of land. [936 B-DJ 
.Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 15 states that where any portion of the mortgaged 
land has been let out to tenants they shall be declare a as Bhumidbars ·of the 
area let out to them. Therefore, the appellants in C. A. 1195of1970 could 
not in law have been d.eclared as Bhumidhars under. s. 15(2) of ihe Delhi Land 
Reforms Act when that land. was adrllittedly under the cultivation of the first 
respondent S_ewa Ram as subtenant under the mortgagee's tenant. 
[936 E·F] 
Section 13(1) of the Act lays down that on the commencement of that 
Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall declare certain classes of tennnts as 
Bhumidhars who shall, with effeCt from the same date, have all the rights and 
be subject to.all the liabilities conferred or in1posed upon Bhumidhars ,under 
that Act. There could be no doubt that the first respondent Sewa Ram 
would have' acquired Bhun1idhari rights under s. 13(1), of the Act on the 
date of its commencement. Merely_ because there is some delay in the Deputy 
Commissioner or Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant as Bhumidhar under 
the provisions of the Act or because there is no such _declaration at all the 
tenant entitled to acquire such _rights under the Act from the date of 'i
0
ts com-
mencement cannot be said to have not acquired those ri&hts having regard to the 
words of s. 13(2) of the Act which says that any person who acquires Bhumi-
dhari rights under any provisions of this Act shall have all the rights arid 
shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Bhumidhars 
under this Act with effect from the _date of acquisition of thos'e rights. Stib-
sections (2)

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