S. P. WATEL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 28-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
S. P. WATEL AND OTHERS 
i· 
STATE OF U.P. 
(with connected appeals) 
March 28, 1973 
783 
[S. M. S!KRI C. J., A. N. RAY, 0. G. PALEKAR, S. N. DWIVEDI 
AND A. K. MUKitERJEA, JJ.] 
U.P. Urhan Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956-
Land leasecl for planting a grove, erecting buildings etc.-Dots not fall 
exclusively under s. 2(1 )(d)-.Secli<>n 2(1 )(d) must be interpretJ<d as 
relating to agricultural land only-Thus construed if protected by Art. 
3 lA of the Constitution-Land in question not proved to be 'agricultural 
area'-Notification under s. 8 of A.ct cannot be i"ssued z'n respect of it-
Abatement of suits and appeals under Rule 39 of the U.P. Urban Areas 
7.amindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules 1957. 
Plot No. 4635A (old number 5199) 
admeasusing 
1 bigha 
and 2 
hiswas and located in the Meerut municipal area was leased by the Lala 
Nanak Chand Trust to the predecessor-in-interest of the present respon-
dents. 
According to the lease deed dated June 23, 1926 the lease was 
granted "for the purpose of planting a grove, erecting buildin!>' and dig-
ging wells etc.". The period of the lease was 30 years but the lessor 
agreed that on the expiration of that period he would at the request of 
the lessee renew the lease for another 30 years. 
On the expiry of the 
initial period of 30 years on July l, 1956 the lessor Trust instituted a suit 
for recovery of possession of the alforesaid land. The suit was dismissed 
by the trial court but decreed by the fir.st appellate court. 
The respon-
dents thereafter, on permission 'granted by the said first appellate court 
instituted a suit for the specific performance of the agreement to re-let the 
land for anot1her term of 30 years. The suit was dismisood on the ground 
of limitation by the trial court, as well as the first appetlate court. 
In 
hoth the suits the present respondents filed second appeals in the High 
Court. 
While these appeals were pending the U.P. Urban Areas Zamin-
<lari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 was enforced in the city of 
Meerut. 
The land in dispute was declared an 'agricultural area~ under 
the Act and a notification under s. 8 of the Act! vesting the land in the 
State was issued on July 16, 1964. Rule 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban 
Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1957 provided for 
abatement of certain suits and appeals. 
Applying the rule the 
High 
Court abated the two aforesaid appeals filed by the respondents before it. 
The Trustees appealed to this Court by special leave. They also filed a 
writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying that the notifica-
tion under s. 8 of the Act dated July 16, 1964 be quashed a.• violative 
of Articles 14, 19(1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution. It was further con-
tended that s. 2(1)(d) of the Act whereby land held on lease 
duly 
executed before the first day of July 1955 for ihe purposes of erecting 
buildings thereon was included in the term 'agricultural area' was protect~ 
cd by Art. 31-A df the Constitution. 
HELD: (i) The lease was not exclusively a building lease. Admitted· 
ly no building had been constructed. The respondents claimed to have 
planted a grove. If so, the land would be covered by s. 2(1)(c)(viii) 
The lease could not therefore be held to fall exclusively under s. 2(1)(d)., 
[790B) 
. 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 S.C.R. 
(ii) In Durga Prasad's case the Allahabad High Court has pointed 
out the history of cl. (d). Tho High Court has taken the view that 
s. 2(1)(d) is limited to lands which are being used for agricultural pur-
poses. 
The conclusion must be held to be correct though for different 
reason•-
On this construction of s. 2(l)(d) it cannot be said that this 
provision is not connected with agricultural reforms. 
It could according-
ly receive the protection of ArL 3 lA and would be· immune from attack 
on the llJ'Ound of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31. [792C] 
Durga Prasad v. Board of Reve11ue U.P. Allahabad and others, A.LR. 
1970 AIL 159, referred to. 
(iii) The report of the Commission: would not show that the land in 
dispute was a grove within the meaning of s. 2(6) of the U.P. Tenancy 
Act, 1939. As the appellants had given the old number of the plot in 
their petition the Government did not reply to the allegation in the peti-
tion. 
Accordingly it was not possil;>Je to express any concluded opinion 
on the question whether the land in dispute was an 'agricultural area' on 
the 

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