KALI PRASAD AND ORS. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 26-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KALI PRASAD AND ORS. 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
JULY 26, 2000 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950/UP. Zamindari 
Abotition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1958: Sections 209, 210 and 
C Section 33/r/w Schedule II/Section 1(2)-Respondents 3 and 4 found to be 
asamis and the appellants to be in adverse possession of the plots in question--
On the death of last khatedar in respect of the plots, suit for declaration and 
eiectment filed by the father of Respondents 3 and 4-Suit decreed by the 
trial court-On appeal, plaint returned by the District Judge on the ground 
of bar of civil courts jurisdiction-Settlement Officer apportioned the plots 
D allotting shares to each of the appellants-Held them to be entitled to sirdari 
rights-Revisions preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation 
allowed holding the appellants to be asamis who cold still be ejected by 
filing a suit-Challenge to the said order dismissed by the High Coi.rt in the 
writ petition-On appeal, Held : Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act had 
E application since the inception of the principal Act i.e. 1952-Therefore 
Respondents 3 and 4 acquired right to succession of the last male tenure 
holder-Section 331 read with Schedule II bars jurisdiction of civil courts 
only in respect of reliefs mentioned in Schedule II-Not every suit of 
declaration is barred under Section 331 of the Act-Categories of declaration 
which cannot be granted by the civil court mentioned against S. No. 34-
F Suit filed by father of Respondents 3 and 4 does not fall under arry of the 
aforementioned sections. 
A set of 13 plots of land alongwith another set of 12 plots was combined 
and joint entries were made in the revenue records. Appeals were filed before 
the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for correction of entries who found 
G one P to be Khatedar and Respondents 3 and 4 to be asamis of the said set of 
plots consisting of 13 plots. Appellants were also found to be in adverse 
possession of the said plots. After the death of P, father of Respondents 3 and 
4 filed two civil suits before the District Munsif claiming declaration of 
bhumidari rights and ejectment of the appellants and others. "The Munsif 
H decreed the suit However, on appeal, the District Judge set aside the judgment 
702 
~
I
KALI PRASAD v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 703 
& decree of the trial court and ordered for return of the plaint on the ground A 
of civil court's jurisdiction being barred. Despite the civil suit the appellants 
could not be ejected from the plots and they became entitled to Sirdari rights 
and accordingly the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) apportioned the plots 
allotting shares to each one of them. Against the said order of the Settlement 
Office, Respondents 3 and 4 filed revision petitions before the Deputy Director B 
(Consolidation) i.e. Respondent No. 1. He allowed the revisions holding that 
Sections 16, 19 and 209 of the Act did not apply to the instant case and 
therefore, the appellants herein continued to be asamis under Section 3 of 
the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952. Respondent No. 1 was also 
of the view that no period of limitation being prescribed for such cases, a suit 
still could be filed for their ejectment. The appellants herein challenged the C 
said order in a writ petition before the High Court which was dismmed. Hence 
this appeal. 
The appellant contended that according to Section 191 of the Act, the 
rights of the appellants as asamis came to an end on the death of Pin 1952 
and thereafter they were holding the plots adverse to the interests of D 
Respondents 3 and 4 and as no suit for ejectment was filed against them under 
Section 209 of the Act, they perfected their rights by adverse possession. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land E 
Reforms Act, 1950 contemplates filing of suit for ejectment of a person 
occupying land without title. In the civil litigation which started after the death 
of P, the District Judge directed that the plaint be returned on the ground 
that the appellants were asamis and their ejectment could not be sought in a 
civil court. Evidently Section 209 does not postulate eviction of asamis. hence, 
they cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by claiming that they F 
are not asamis either under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms 
(Suppl

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