HAKIM ALI AND ANR. versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 19-12-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HAKIM ALI AND ANR. 
v. 
BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 1990 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 
229-B-Dispute relating to bhumidhari rights-Competency of Borad 
of Revenue to refer dispute to arbitration. 
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950-
Sections-293 and 339(c)-Scope and construction of-Difference in 
terminology-Effect of. 
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901-Chapter IX-Whether applicable 
to the proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Aboli-
tion and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Legislative intention of. 
The father of appellant No. 1 instituted a suit under Section 229-B 
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 against 
respondent No. 2, for a declaration that be was Bbumidbar in respect of 
suit-lands. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died 
and the appellants were brought on record as the plaintiffs. The suit 
was dismissed by the S.D.O. 
On appeal, it was decreed by the Additional Commissioner. 
Respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal before the Board of 
p 
Revenue, and on the joint request of the parties, the dispute was 
referred to arbitration. Respondent No. 5-the arbitrator gave his 
award. Objections were filed by the appellants against the award, and 
one of them was that the reference to arbitration was bad in law 
inasmuch as the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction .to refer the 
dispute and the award given by the arbitrator was void and without 
G 
jurisdiction. The objection of the appellants was however rejected. 
The appellants filed a writ petition, challenging the decision of the 
Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the High Court holding that 
in view of Section 203 of the U .P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 the provisions 
of the Arbitration Act were applicable to cases coming up for hearing 
H 
before the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue had jurisdic-
566 
HAKIM ALI v. BOARD OF REVENUE 
567 
tion to refer a dispute involved in second appeal under the Zamindari 
Abolition Act to arbitration. 
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants 
appealed to this Court, contending that Section 293 of the Zamindari 
Abolition Act expressly limited the applicability of the provisions of 
Chapters IX and X of the Land Revenue Act to applications and pro-
ceedings made or taken under Chapter X of the Zamindari Abolition 
Act; that Section 203 of the Land Revenue Act would be applicable only 
to applications and proceedings made or taken under Chapter X 
(Sections 241 to 294) of the Zamindari Abolition Act; that the provisions 
of Section 203 of the Land Revenue Act would not be applicable to 
second appeal arising out of a suit filed under Section 229-B of the 
Zamindari Abolition Act which was not a proceeding taken under 
Chapter X of the Zamindari Abolition Act; and that the difference in 
the language used by the legislature in Sections 293, 339, 341 of the 
Zamindari Abolition Act indicates limited applicability of the provi-
sions of the Land Revenue Act to proceedings and applications under the 
Zamindari Abolition Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD: 1. Arbitration is a recognized mode of settlement of dis-
putes. It enables the parties to resolve their. dispute by a tribunal 
selected by them. The considerations which justify reference to arbitra-
E 
tion of disputes arising iu applications and proceedings under Chapter 
X of the Zamindari Abolition Act are equally applicable to applications 
and proceedings under other provisions of the Act. [576D-E) 
2. Section 293 cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along_ 
with Section 339. In clause (c) of Section 339 it is prescribed that with 
p 
effect from the date of vesting in respect of any area, the Land Revenue 
Act shall, in its application to such area, be deemed to be and Is hereby 
amended to the extent mentioned in column 3 of the List II of the 
Schedule III of the said Act. [573B-C] 
3. The High Court has rightly taken the view that the Board of G 
Revenue had ample jurisdiction under Section 203 of the Land Revenue 
Act to refer to arbitration the djspute involved in the second appeal 
pending before it which arose out of a suit under Section 229-B of the 
Zamindari Abolition Act. [576F-G] 
4. The distinction based on the difference in terminology used in 
H 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A Sections 293 and 339(

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