LexMAHARAJA KUMAR SOMENDRA CHAND NANDY versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
115 MAllAR;\JA KUMAR SOMENDRA CHAND NANDY v. THE STATE OF l1'ITAR PRADESH JULY 10, 1985 [V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND SABYASACHI MUK!IARJI, JJ • J B Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 ss. 4 & 6 - Jagirdari rights - Grant of - Whether fall outside the purview of the Act - Worship of deity - Entrustment of right - Whether provision for -payment of compensation to be made• A Jagir of 41 villages was conferred on Dewan Krishna Kant Nandy, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant by the Raja of. Banaras. By .a fresh Sanad issued on January 10, ·1785 the Governor-G>neral assigned the said villages as 'Altamga Jagir ', c for the purposes of defraying the expenses of worship etc. of the deity in a temple. Subsequently, in the ·year 1793, the grantee D created a trust of the income of this Jagir in favour of the deity. In the revenue settlement of 1841 the grantee was entered as Jagirdar of these villages entitled to reaUse the land re- venue and the zamindars were· to -pay the annual land revenue to the Jagirdar, and since then the grantee and his descendants have been realising the land revenue. In execution of the decrees in the suits which were· filed against the defaulting zamindars, the E appellant's ancestors purchased t.he zamindari rights. When the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms· Act, 1950 came into force i!l 1952, the appellant claimed to have two distinct rights, namely, Jagirdari rights under the Sanad and additional Zamindari rights acquired by purchase in exeeution of the F decrees. The appellant was, however, paid compensation in the form of annuity in respect of those villages over which he had acquired zamindari rights as the land was held in trust for meeting ,the expenses of a religious institution •. The State's claim that the Jagirdari rights of the appellant became vested in the State under ss. 4 and 6 of the Act, was disputed by the G appellant contending that his Jagirdari rights fell outside the purview of the Act and had not vested in the State. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging that he had not been paid compensation in resP.,ct of Jagirdari rights and sought direction to the Governme.nt to H 116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 S.C.R. A recognize and enforce the Jagirdari rights over the said villages. The petition was dismissed and this order was confirmed by a Division Bench. Dismissing the Appeal to this Court, B HELD: · 1. The intention of the LegiSlature as clearly disclosed by the Scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was to extinguish estates, all derivative rights in estates and interest of intermediaries between the State and the tiller of the soil. All grants and confirmation of title in respect of a right or privilege over land in an estate or its .revenue, would stand automatically C determined under the provisions of the Act. [118 G-H] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kumlar Sri Trivikrma Narain Singh, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 213 followed. 2. In the instant case, the appellant was having Jagirdari rights over 41 villages under the Sansd issued in January 1785, D and the interest of the appellant in the land constituted an estate under Cl. (8) s. 3 of the Act read with Cl. (26) of that section. As a result of the combined operation of ss. 4 and 6 of the Act, the Jagirdarl. rights on the date of the coming into force of the Act automatically ceased and became vested in the State free from encumbrances with effect from the specified date. E [119 D-11, 120 A] F G 3. The Sansd expressly states that the grantee shall take and use the produce of the original lands and increase thereof .without being liable to pay any Dewani contributions and govern- ment demands. [119 CJ 4. The appellant and his predecessors were entitled to take possession and hold control over the lands. The application for grant of the Sansd clearly shows that the request was for conf ir- mation of the grant of 41 mouzas of land and for the issue of a Sanad evidencing such confirmation. [119 D] (Per.,Sabyasachi lkil<harji J. coDCUrring) In the instant case, there is no provision for any compensation for vesting of the right of entrustment of certain duties of worship which belonged to the donee. The Act has not H been challenged on the ground as being ultra vires and though it is not necessary to provide for compensation in 811 cases after s.c.NANDY v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.