JAI DUTT versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 26-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
. ....__. 
\ 
17 5 
JAI DUTT 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
October 26, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Land (Evictio,n and Recovery of Rent & Da1nages) Act, 1959, s. 3(1) 
and U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 
s. 
180(2)-Scope of-Appellant reniained in 
occupation of baniar (barren) land for twelve years-Claitned ow11ership of 
land -No documentary 
evidence or rent receipts produced-Failure to take 
proceedings to evict-If would confer title on trespasser-Land lying banjar-
Lawful ownership lies with State. 
A notice under s. 3(1) of the U.P. Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and 
Damages) Act, 1959 was issued by the Public Authority to the appellant on the 
ground that he \\'as in unauthorised occupation of public land. 
The Public 
Authority rejected the appellant's claim that since he was in possession of the 
land for 1nore than 12 years, he had acquired rights of a 
hereditary tenant 
under s. 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The appellant failed in bis 
appeal to the District Judge and his writ petition under Art. 226 was rejected 
by the Hi.5b Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the appellant had become a 
hereditary tenant under s. 180(2) of thei. Tenancy Ac~ by reason of the fact that 
he had been in cultivatory possession of the land for a number of years and no 
steps had been taken to evict him within two years of his entry into possession 
of the land, (2) that since he had been paying rent to the Government he was 
not in unauth~rised occupation of the land and (3) failure of the Public Autho-
rity to refer the dispute to a Civil Judge under Section 7 of the Act vitiated the 
order of eviction 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: l(a) The appellant's claim was not that he la\vfully entered into 
possession of the land but that he took possession without any grant, settlement 
or leases from the owner. By claiming acquisition of a hereditary 
tenancy 
under s. 180(2) he admitted that he had taken possession without any title and 
\Vithout the consent of the land owner. [180 C] 
(b) The provisions of Section 2(18), 30, 180(2) of the Tenancy Act are to 
c 
D 
E 
F 
be construed in harmony with each other. 
So construed, a person occupying 
G 
land belonging to the State Government, as a trespasser or \vithout title or a 
person holding over after the revocation or cancellation of the lease, aJlotinent or 
a grant in accordance with the condition thereof, cannot be "a tenureholder ... 
from the State Governn1ent under the U.P. Act, 1939." within the meaning of 
Sec. 2(e)(i) of the Tenancy Act. There was thus no doubt that the land was 
"public land" within the meaning of the Eviction Act. [181 A-BJ 
(2) The obligation to refer the question whether or not the land is public 
land, unde:~ Section 7, is not basic but contingent. Although the· Public Autho-
rity did not say in the phraseology of the statute that the objection raised by the 
H 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1979] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant was pnina facie baseless, yet, in substance, it well-nigh can1c to the 
same conclusion. It was, therefore, not obligatory for the authority to refer the 
question to the Civil Court. [181 F] 
B 
c 
(3) The plea that the notice did not comply with the requirements of s. 3 
of the Eviction Act and for that reason illegal had not been raised in the Courts 
below. It is not a pure question of law. The appellant has not produced a copy 
of the notice served on him. 
In the circumstances, the maxim omnia prae-
sun1untur vitt~ essa acta V.'ill be attracted. 
It will be presun1cd that the purpose 
for ·which the appellant \Vas sought to be evicted was duly specified in the 
notice in complaincc '\Vith the requirements of s. 3(2). [182 A-8] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDICTlON : Civil Appeal No. 484 of 1969. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28-7-1967 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Special Appeal No. 352167. 
M. S. Gupta for the Appellant. 
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana. for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SARKARIA, J. This is an appeal by certificate against a judgment, 
dated July 28, 1967, pass,ed by ·the High Court of Allahabad in Special 
Appeal 352 of 1967. It arises out of these facts: 
J ai Dutt, appellant, was in possession of public land bearing Survey 
Nos. 230, 131A and 131B, with an aggregate area of 80 Bighas and 
19 Biswas in the area of village Guljarpur Purramsingh, Tehsil Kala-
chungi, Dist!. Nainital. 
The Public

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