RAGHUNANDAN SINGH & ORS. versus BRIJ MOHAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1063 · Decided: 15-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
. 
\ 
• 
' I 
' 
1063 
RAGHUNANDAN SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
BRIJ MOHAN SINGH & ORS. 
February 15, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
[J. P. Zan1i11dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 o1 
1950) Section 12-Scope of. 
Terms of Thcka empowering lease-holders to remain in possession of agrl .. 
.c;ultural land--Appoint te1nporary tenants and recover Govern1nent Revenue-
Thekadar whether a hereditary tenant. 
The appellants who were originally the Zamindars of the land in dispute 
granted Thekas to the respondents first on the 10th July, 1933 and then on the 
24th May, 1943. 
While the first Theka provided that the tease-holders were 
to remain in pos.4ession of the entire agricultural land either through them~ 
1elves or by euanging with temporary tenants and by recovering government 
revenue, the second Theka though in the same terms, provided that the lease-
hold'ers would remain in possession of the agricultural land as lease-holders 
·themselves and may appoint temporary tenants by receiving the government 
A 
B 
c 
D 
, 
revenue. 
l 
' 
i 
The appellants succeeded before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but 
the Deputy Director of Consolidation held in revision, that the appellants were 
Bhoomidars and the respondents could not get any status under Section 12 of 
the Uttar Pradesh Zam.indari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950·. 
The 
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants in limine. 
E 
In the appeal to this Court it v,.-as submitted on behalf of the appellants 
that as the Theka granted by the Zamindars was not made with the les<ees 
<>nly for the purposes of personal cultivation of the lands the respondents 'Nould 
not fall within the ambit of section 12 of the Act, while on behalf of th~ 
respondents it wa<I contended that oo they were in cultivating possession of the 
lands in question, they had acquired the status of her'editary tenants conferred 
p 
on them by section 12 of the Act and they were not Assamis as contemplated 
by section 13 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. Before a person can be held to be a hereditary tenant under 
Section 12 of the Act, three conditions must be fulfilled: (1) He must be in 
possession of the land in dispute on the !st May 1950, (2) His possession mlist 
G 
be under a Tbeka and (3) The Th'eka must be for the purpose of personal 
cuttivlltion of the lands in dispute by that person and not for other purposes. 
!1065C-DJ 
2. The dominant intention of the statute, as of other land reforms legisla· 
tion, is to secure land for the tiller of the soil who alone would be clothed 
with the special rights of a hereditary tenant. 
[1065-DJ 
H 
3. The terms of the Tbeka do not spell out the facts that the respondents 
llad taken the lease for purposes of personal cultivation only, because other 
1064 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 2 S.C.R. 
' A 
purpoSes also are indicated as part of the Theka namely to sublet the land 
or to appoint tcmpora.ry tenants and the like. 
The conditions required by 
section 12 are therefore not fulfilled in the 
case 
of 
the 
respondents. 
[1066C] 
B 
Balu Noorul Hassan Khan (Dead) by LRs v. Ram Prasad Singh and oilier! 
[1980] 1 S.C.C. 367 followed and relied upon; Rani Dullaiya & Anr. v. Ganga 
Prarad 1968 ALJ 518 over-ruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 1970. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9-4-19.69 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petitiou No. 1005 of 1969. 
S. P. Singh and R. A. Gupta for the Appellant. 
C 
Yogeswar Prasad, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, S. K. Bagga and Mrs. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S. K. Bagga for Respondent No. 4. 
S. N. Singh for Respondents 1-3 and 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAzAL Au, J.-This appeal by certificate is directed against a 
judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the writ 
petition filed by the appellants in limine. We have heard learned 
counsel for the parties at great length. 
The only point for detenni-
nation in the present appeal is whether the case of the parties is govern-
ed by section 12 or section 13 of the U .P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act 1950 (Act I of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act). 
The facts in dispute are that so far as the appellants are concerned, 
they were orginally the zamindars of the lands in dispute and they 
granted Thckas to the respondents first on the 10th of July, 1933 and 
then on the 24th May, 1943. The interpretation of the tenns of the 

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