GRAM SABHA, BESAHANI versus RAM RAJ SINGH & ORS

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 31-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GRAM SABHA, BESAHANI 
v. 
RAM RAJ SINGH & ORS 
January 31, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
U.P. Zamindari Aholi1ion and Lc;ncl Reform< Act. 1950 (1 of 1951). 
s. 212A (6) and (7)--Suh-Di\·i{ionnl Officer ordering tjtctment under s. 
212A (6) without a1vardi111: co111pensation-Such order ;S invt:.lid and does 
not a/tract provi<ions of s. 212A (7) arrd Entry at SI. No. 328 of Appendix 
Ill read with Rule 338 of U.P. Zc.1nindari Aholition and Land Refornis 
Rules. 1952-Suit challen11in11 .111ch order can be filed under s. 209 of 
the Act within si:c years of the date of dispO.\StS!iiOfl, 
The respondents filed a suit under s. 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Aboli-
tion and Land Reforms Act 1950, in respect of five plots of land claiming 
to have Sirdari rights in one of them and Bhumidari rights in the other 
four. 
By this suit they challenged the order of th-' Sub-Divisional Oll!cer 
pu~rting to be under s. 2 I 2A ( 6) of the Act dispossessing the plaintiffs 
from he aforesaid plots and ~ran1ing p~ession thereof to the appellant 
Gram Sabha. 
The Revenue c:ourt framed several issues, the second of 
\•.:hich was whether the respondent!\ had ever acqui~d Bhurnidha'ri rights 
in Jhe four plots in which they claimed tbern. 'fhis issue was referred to 
lhe Civil Court which held thal. as no suit was filed under s. 212A (7) 
of the Act, within six month) ol the dispossession as required by the 
Entry at SI. No. 328 of Appendix III read with Rule 338 of the U.P. 
Zamindari and Land Reforms Rules 1952. !he 
respondents' 
rights 
as 
Rhumidars, if any, stood extinguished. 
On receipt of this 
decision 
oe 
issue No. 2 the Revenue Court proceeded to determine the claim of the 
respondents in respect of Sirdari right"i in one plot and it found lhat these 
ri~ts were never acquired. 
It therefore dismissed the respondents' suit 
w1tho\lt recording any finding on the remaining 
issues. The first «ppeal 
having failed, the respondents liled a second appe•I: 
Therein 
the High 
Court held that the order of the Suh-Divisional Ma~strate purporting to 
be made under s. 212A (6) of the Act was not valid because it did not 
direct payment of compen'Sation as laid down in that section, so that the 
rights a6 Sirdars and Bhuntidars were not lost hy lhe respondents. 
The 
appellant came to this Court by special leave. 
HELD: fi) The language of s. 212A (6) makes it clear that the order 
under that provision must he an order for ejectment 
of the person 
in 
possession of the land on payment of such compensation as mc1.y be pres-
cribed. 
In the present case no compensation having been Ordered to be 
paid there was no valid order under s. 212A (6). AC'Cordingly the provi-
sions of s. 212A (7) which come into play only when a valid order has 
been passed under s. 212A (6). were not auracte<l to the ca;e at all. In such 
a case a suit clearly lay against the appellants under s. 209 of the Act and 
such a suit could be instituted within six years from the date that unla1,1w·-
ful possession wa5 taken hy the appellant. The present suit was admittedly 
brought within that period and was therefore not time-barred. 
[859 F, 
860 E] 
(ii) The suit in respect Of the plot in which Sirdari rights were claimed 
by the respondents was dismiiscd hy the trial court on the ground that 
such rights had neVcr been acquired. 
This was a finding of fact and the 
invalidity of the order under s. 212A did not affect it. [d60 FJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II ....
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
GRAM SABHA v. RAJ SINGH (Bhargava, J.) 
857 
(iii) In respect of the four plots in which Bhumidhari rights were 
claimed by the respondents, the case must be remanded to the tnal court 
for determination of the undecided issues relating to them. [859 B.C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 719 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 18, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 4482 of 1961. 
S. P. Sinha, E. C. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawala, for the appel-
lant. 
B .. C. Misra and H. K. Puri, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bbari:ava, J. 
The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit No. 25 
of 1957 under section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Aboli-
tion and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (No. I of 1951) (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the act"), claiming possession of five plots Nos. 
729/2, 725/2, 723/2 881/2 and 330/3 on the ground that t)iey 
were Sirdars of plot No. 330

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