PRATAP SINGH@ BABU RAM AND ANR versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MAINPURI AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 22-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
PRATAP SINGH@ BABU RAM AND ANR 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MAINPURI AND 
ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950: 4(1), 6(g)(h), 
14, 18 and 209, '210-Appendix III-Entry 30. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : Section 73. 
Tenancy and Land Laws-Land recorded in the name of H, predeces-
sor-in-interest of appellants-Initiation, of consolidation proceed-
D ings-Respondent's claim that plots in question constituted "sir" and 
"Khudakasht" land of their predecessor-in-interest, A-Ground that A 
mortgaged plots to Hon 21.1.1920-Therefore on abolition of zamindari they 
should have been recorded as bhumidars-Consolidation officer decided in 
favour of H-On respondents' appeal Assistant Settlement Officer held that 
on abolition of zamindari possession of H became adverse-Since 
E respondents' had not filed suit within limitation of three years they lost their 
rightS-On revision this order was upheld by Deputy Director Consoli'dation-
Respondents' unsuccessfully challenged the order in a writ before High 
Court-Thereafter Full Bench of the High Court held that the period of 
limitation for suit would not start from the date of vesting but from the date 
F on which the possession is demanded by the mortgagor-After decision of 
Full Bench Division Bench disposed the appeals in tenns of judgment of Full 
Bench and allowed the writ petition of respondents-hence this appeaf--H eld 
view taken by Full Bench is co"ect-Reading of the words of Entry 30 in 
Appendix Ill, relating to suits under S.209 of the Act, makes it clear that the 
period of limitation would not run from the date of vesting as the character 
G of mortgagee's possession remains 'pennissive' and does not become 'adverse' 
to the interest of the mortgagor who after acquiring "Bhumidari" rights under 
Section 18, may still allow the mortgagee to continue in possession-Entry 30 
would apply to a suit where a person has obtained possession over land 
"unlawfully" and continues to retain that possession unlawfullJThe period 
H of limitation in the case of 'pennissive' possession would start running from 
150 
-
-
-
I.• 
~· 
")-
.,... 
.. 
PRATAP SINGH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [S. SAGHIRAHMAD, J.) 151 
the date the mortgagee, who is asked to deliver possession, refuses to do A 
so-Recourse to Section 73 of Transfer of Property Act, held pennissible. 
Pennissive possession-What is 
Ba/want & Ors. v. 17ze Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., AIR 
(1975) Allahabad 295, approved. 
B 
Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., [1962] 2 SCR 441 
= AIR (1961) SC 1790 and Raj Narain v. Sant Prasad, AIR (1973) SC 291, 
referred to. 
Shri Ram v. Dilan Bahadur Singh, AIR (1965) Allahabad 223; Mustafa 
Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1972) AW 854 = AIR (1973) 
Allahabad 372; Mahabal Singh v. Ram Raj, (1950) AW 713 = AIR (1950) 
Allahabad 604 and Tribeni v. Chakaun· & Ors., (1982) AW 784, referred to. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 788 of D 
1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.78 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 845 of 1969. 
Shanti Bhushan and J.P. Goyal, S.S. Khanduja and R.P. Goyal for 
the Appellants. 
Promod Dayal and Piyush Sharma for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Plot Nos. 510, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524 
E 
F 
and 533 of Khata No. 76 situated in village Akbarpur Kutubpur, Pargana 
Mustafabad, Tehsil J asrana,, District Mainpuri, were recorded in the basic 
year in the name of Hira Lal, father of the present appellants. When the 
Consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act G 
(for short 'the Act') started, the respondents filed objections claiming, inter 
alia, that the plots in question constituted "Sir" and "Khudkasht" land of 
their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Hansraj, who had mortgaged these 
plots in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on 21.1.1920. 
On the abolition of the Zamindari by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and H 
152 
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
- A Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short 'the ZA&LR Act') they ought to have 
been recorded as "Bhumidhars" of the said land in view of Section 14 of 
the ZA & LR Act. 
The appellants contested the case before the Consolidation Officer 
B by filing a written statement !Ind the Consolidation Officer by his judgment 
and order.dated 29.5.1963
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.