SMT. BELI RAM SINGH CHOWDHARY AND ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 31-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. BEL! RAM SINGH CHOWDHARY AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
OCTOBER 31, 1995 
B 
fK. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, J.1.J 
Assam Acquisition of Zaminda1ies Act, 195 I. 
Lands~Vesting of in Stat,,_Suit for declaration of title to land and 
C possession-Plea of adverse possessiolt-Held, adverse possession is an en-
cumbrance under State Revenue Act and it does not bind State. 
The appellants tiled a suit for declaration of title alleging that the 
lands in dispute were given to their predecessor-in-interest as dowry at the 
time of her marriage and that she and thereafter her successors including 
D the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the lands in their 
own right; and that the lands did not stand vested in State under the 
Assam Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951. The Trial Court decreed the 
suit. But, on appeal, the first appellate Court dismissed the suit holding 
that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. In the second appeal, the High 
E 
Court while upholding the findings of the first appellate Court, passed a 
conditional decree directing the State to pay compensation to the plain-
tiffs, if not already paid. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs tiled the appeal by special 
leave. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The findings of the High Court that the plaintiffs having 
failed to prove their title to the lands and that it did not form part of 
acquisition under the Assam AclJUisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951 did not 
remain as owners of the lands which stood vested in the State, are not 
G vitiated by any manifest error of law warranting interference. [622-E] 
2. The High Court was right in holding that the adverse possession 
is an encumbrance under the State Revenue Act and it does not bind the 
State. Therefore, as against the State, the appellant had not perfected their 
title by adverse possession. Since the appellants had asserted title to the 
H 
property, burden is on them to establish the same which they failed to 
620 
B.R.S. CHOWDHARYv. STATE 
621 
establish. [622-B-C] 
3. As regards the conditional decree granted by the High Court with 
regard to payment of the compensation, it is for the appellants to make 
an application to the appropriate authority seeking payment. [622-F] 
A. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 743 of B 
1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.81 of the Assam High Court 
in Second Appeal No .. 17 of 1976. 
S.K. Nady for the Appellants. 
S.N. Choudhary and Shakeel Ahmad for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
c 
This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment and decree D 
dated August 4, 1981 of the Guwahati High Court at Guwahati made in 
S.A. No. 17/76. The appellant-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title 
that the lands in Chaibari Village which were part of Machpara Estate were 
given to Dayamoree Devi, daughter of Rai Bahadur Prithiram Chowdhury, 
the holder of the said estate as dowry at the time of her marriage and that E 
she and thereafter her successors including the plaintiffs had been in 
possession and enjoyment of the lands in their own right. The lands therein 
did not stand vested in the State of Assam under the Assam State Acquisi-
tion of the Zamindaries Act, 1951. The Trial Court decreed the suit. But 
on appeal, the District .I udge reversed the decree and held that the 
appellants had failed to prove that the appellants possessed the lands in 
F 
their own right and that it was not vested in the State. Accordingly, the suit 
was dismissed. In second appeal, while upholding the findings of the. 
appellate Court, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held lhal if 
the compensation for the lands comprised in Chaibari Village were not 
paid, a conditional decree was passed directing the State to pay the G 
compensation in respect thereof lo the appellants. Thus this appeal by 
special leave. 
Shri S.K. Nandy, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended 
that since the lands had passed on from the Zamindar to his daughter as 
dowry, she became the absolute owner of the property. The State had not H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A proved that they had acquired the land under the Act and that compensa-
tion was paid to them. Thereby the lands did not vest in the State. The 
High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that the title of the land in 
favour of the appellants stood extinguished under the Act. We find no force 
in th

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