MAHARAJ SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 1072 · Decided: 02-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
1072 
MAHARAJ SINGH 
• 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS 
November 2, 1976 
[H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.] 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 117-Scope 
of-State vests lands in Gaon Sabha-Suit for ejectment-Gaon Sabha did ••~t 
appeal-State-If had locus standi. 
Words & phrases-Vest-Person aggrie1·ed-Appurte11a11ce-Mea11i11g 'fl 
By virtue of s. 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 
1950, the right, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate includ-
ing hats, bazars and me/as stood terminated and vested absolutely in the State. 
Section 9 provides that all wells, trees in abadi and all buildings situate within 
the limits of an Estate, belonging to an intermediary, shall continue to belong 
to or be held by such intermediary and the site of the buildings which is 
appurtenant thereto, shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Gov-
ernment. Section 117 ( 1) empowers the State Government to 
vest 
lands 
in 
Gaon Sabhas or other local authorities. Under s. 117(6) the State 
Govern-
ment has power to resume from a Gaon Sabha the lands vested in it. 
By a 
notification under s. 117(1) the State Government vested the land in the village 
in the Gaon Sabha. 
On the estate in dispute, the defendant who was the quondam zamindar, had 
been conducting a cattle fair. 
The estate had on it, among others, a few struc-
tures. The plaintiffs' (the State and the Gaon Sabha) suit for ejectment of the 
defendant from the estate was dismissed by the trial court. 
Th~ Gaon Sabha, 
however, did not appeal; but the State went in appeal to the High Court as 'a 
person aggrieved'. The Rish Court negatived the defendant's contentions that 
as a result of the notification under s. 117 ( 1) the land having vested in the 
Gaon Sabha, the State Government had no locus standi and that it was not a 
person aggrieved, but allowed the defendant to keep all the structures 
and 
a 
space of 5 yards running round each building. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) The State has title to sustain the action in ejectment. The 
Government, despite vesting the estates in Gaon Sabhas has, and continues to 
have, a constant hold on these estates, when it chooses, to ta\ce away what it 
had given possession of to a Gaon Sabha. This is plainly 'present legal interest' 
in the Government and a sort of precarium 
te11a11s in the Sabha. [1082 D; 
1079 F-G] 
(a) The Act contemplates taking over of all zamindari rights as part of land 
reform. Instead of centralising management of all estates ~t State level, the 
Act gives an enabling power to make over these states to Gaon Sabhas. Apart 
from management, no power is expressly vested in the Sabhas to dispose of the 
estates absolntely. If the State thinks fit to amend or cancel the earlier vesting 
declaration or notification it can totally deprive the Sabha of, and resume from 
it, any estate. The vesting in the State was absolute but the vesting 
in the 
Sabha was limited to possession and management subject to divestiture 
by 
Government. Such a construction of vesting in two different senses in the· same 
section is sound because the word 'vest' has many meanings. The sense of the 
situation suggests that in s. 117 ( 1) 'vested in the State' carries a plenary conno-
tation, while 'shall vest in the Gaon Sabha' imports a qualified disposition con-
fined to the right to full possession and enjoyment so long as 
it lasts. 
To 
postulate vesting of absolute title in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of the declara-
tion under s. 117(1) is to stultify s. 117(6). [1081 A-C; F-G] 
/ 
) 
'; ' .. 
MAHARAJ SINGH v. UTTAR PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, 1.) 
1073 
(b) The State is 'a person aggrieved'. 
He, who has a 
proprietary rii;ht, 
A 
which has beei or is threatened by violation, is an 'aggrieved person'. The nght 
to a remedy apart, a larger circle of persons can move the court for the pro-
tection of defence or enforcement of a civil right or to ward off or claim com-
pensation for a civil wrong, even if they are not proprietarily or pcrsonall v 
Jinked with the cause of ·action. The nexus between the /is and the plaintiff 
need not necessarily be personal. 
A person aggrieved is an expression which has 
expanded with the larger urgencies and felt necessities of our time. [1082 E-F] 
(c) The amplitude of 'legal grievance' has broadened with social compul-
sions. 
The State undertakes today activities whose beneficiaries may
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.