RAJESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS. versus AVNEESH KUMAR AVASTHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 04-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS. 
v. 
A VNEESH KUMAR AV ASTHI AND ORS. 
APRIL 4,,2002 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Tenancy Laws : 
Claim for possession of suit land by lessor after expiry of lease period-
C During pendency of litigation suit land declared agricultural land by Zamindari 
Abolition Act-After enquiry, land found not to be agricultural-Held, lessor 
entitled to recovery of possession since its interest in the land was not ousted 
by virtue of proceedings under the Act-Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956-Section 8. 
D 
· The land in dispute was leased out by lessor-, Trust to one of its trustees 
- the predecess~r of the appellants, for a period of 30 years. The lease deed 
contained renewal clause. 
After expiry of the lease period, Trust filed suit for possession of the 
E land which was dismissed. First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the 
Trust 
·F 
Thereafter, appellants-legal heirs of the lessee filed suit for specific 
performance of the contract. The case was dismissed by Trial Court as well 
as First Appellate Court, as time barred. 
Appellant filed two Second Appeals in High Court against both the 
orders of the Appellate Courts. 
During pendency of the Second Appeals, Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas, 
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 came into force and 
G notification under Section 8 of the Act was issued declaring the disputed land 
as 'agricultural land'. Appellants filed application for abatement of the 
pending appeals in view of the land being declared as 'agricultural land'. High 
Court allowed the application and the suits and appeals arising therefrom 
stood abated. 
H 
926 
, ' 
., 
RAJESHW AR DAYAL v. A VNEESH KUMAR A VAST HI 
927 
~ 
~ 
The Trust filed appeal to this Court against the order of High Court A 
abating the appeals. It also filed writ" petition praying for quashing the 
notification under Section 8 of the Act The writ petition was aUowed quashing 
the notification. However, Government was directed to hold enquiry for 
• 
finding out as to whether the land was agricultural and held that if the land 
in dispute was found to be not agriculthral land no further notification would B 
be issued under Section 8 of the Act The appeals were allowed setting aside 
the orders of High Court abating the appeals and suits and the same were 
directed to be restored to their original numbers. However, it directed that 
~ 
appeals would be decided on merits by the High Court only after the result 
of the enquiry under the Act, if it was found that the land was not an 
agricultural land. 
c 
High Court decided the appeals, without waiting for the result of the 
enquiry and dismissed both the appeals upholding the findings of the First 
Appellate Court. Hence the present appeals. 
;.. 
During pendency of the appeals, this Court directed the enquiry to be D 
completed. After completion of the enquiry the concerned authorities gave 
concurrent finding that the land in dispute was not agricultural land on the 
relevant date. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD : I. In view of concurrent findings of the concerned Authorities 
that the land in dispute was not agricultural land on the relevant date, the 
' 
question of government issuing a notification under Section 8 of the Act 
abolishing the intermediary interest held by the Trust in the property does 
not arise. [933-D] 
F 
2. Judgment of the High Court dismissing the second appeals filed by 
the appellant is unassailable since the appellants who were in unauthorised 
occupation of the land since the expiry of the period of the lease have no valid 
reason to resist the claim of the Trust for recovery of possession of the 
property. (933-E] 
G 
y' 
CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2462-63 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.99 of the Allahabad High Court 
in S.A. Nos. 425/60 and 1649 of 1962. 
H 
A 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f2002] 2 S.C.R. 
R.B. Mehrotra, M.M. Kshatriya and Jagdish Singh for the Appellants. 
P.P. Malhotra, Shaiiendra Sharma, Ms. Binu Tamta, Pramod Swarup, 
Praveen Swarup, Ms. Prema Swarup, Amit Singh and Prashant Chaudhary for 
the Respondents. 
T 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted. 
These appeals filed by heirs and legal representatives of the erstwhile 
,1.. 
lessee are directed against the judgment dated 9. 9 .1999 of the High Court of 
C Judicature at Allahabad dismissing th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.