STATE OF U.P. versus SMT. SARJOO DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 27-07-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~.1 
j) 
181 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
SMT. SARJOO DEVI & ORS. 
July 27, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJJ 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950-ss. 3(14), 212 and 
212A-Scope of-Land settled on the respondent with hereditary tenancy rights 
-Sabhapati of Gaon claimed the land to be co1nmon pasture. [and-No evidence 
to show the land to be pasture land-Sub Divisional Officer ordered ejectn1ent 
of the 1enant-Lega/ity of the order. 
Words and phraSes-"Held" meaning of. 
Under section 3 of the U.P. Land Utilisation Act, the Collector served a 
notice on two intermediaries under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act, 1950, calling upon them either to cultivate the land belonging 
to them or to let it out to other persons- for cultivation. Thereupon in 1950 
the land was settled on respondent No. 1 with hereditary tenancy -rights. In 
1954, a notification was issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring that 
certain lands, including the land in dispute, would be constituted as reserve 
forest. 
Respondent No. 1 preferred her claim before the Forest Settlement 
Officer. In the meantime respondent No. 5, Sabhapati of the Gaon Samaj, filed 
an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer claiming that the land was 
customary pasture land and that respondent No. 1, who had encroachrd upon 
the land, should be ejected. That application having been granted, respondent 
No. 1 filed a suit against the appellant and others for a declaration that the 
Sub-D.ivisional Officer's order was null and void and was not binding on her 
because she was the Sirdar in possession of the land. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The trial Court held that the suit land was never recorded in the revenue 
papers as customary pasture land but as 'Parti' land fit for cultivation and dee-
E 
lared the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer to be null and void. The District 
Court and the Hi_gh Court upheld the order of the trial Court. 
In appeal before this Court, it was contended that (i) the trial court was 
wrong in holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer's order was null and void; 
(ii) the impugned order was final and (iii) the Jand not having been ever 
occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture respondent No. 1 could 
not be said to be a hereditary tenant. 
' 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (l)(a) The Courts below were right in holding that the land in 
question was not customary common pasture land nor it ever been used as 
customary pasture land or pasture land in any year. ·The Sub-Divisional Officer 
acted without jurisdiction and the impugned order was wholly illegal, ineffective, 
null and void and not binding on respondent No. 1. 
[186 B] 
(Ii) A conjoint reading of the provisions of ss. 212-A and 212 of the 1950 
Act would show that the Chairman, member or society of a committee referred 
to in s. 121 can make an application to the Collector for ejectment of a person 
only if the land of \vhich he is in possession is of the description specified in s. 
212, that is, (i) if it was recorded as customary pasture land or (ii) if it was 
a customary common pasture land. The evidence adduced in the case does not 
at all show that the suit land was recorded as customary pasture land nor does 
it show that it was in fact customary common pasture land. 
On the contrary 
the relevant revenue records showed that they land in question was "Parti fit for 
cultivation." [185 HJ 
(2) The Sub-Divisional Officer's order cannot be held to be final and the 
suit of respondent No. 1 to establish her right was clearly maintainable. 
The 
impurned order passed under s. 212-A is not final and it is open tb the party 
F 
G 
H 
18 2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
against whom the order of ejectment was passed to institute a suit to establish 
the rig~t claimed by it. It is only when the suit instituted by the person sought 
to be eJected fails that the ord;:r of the ejectmenJ becomes cop.elusive. 
[186 G] 
~"t_/ _. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(3) (a) This Court'in Bud/zan Singh & Anr. v. Nabi Bux & Anr. [19701 2 
S.C.R. 10, interpreted the word "held" ins. 9 of the 1950 Act as meaning posses-
sion by ·Jegal title". 
[187 E] 
(b) A perusal of the definition of the word 'land' in the Act would show 
that it is not necessary for the land to fall within the purview of this definition, 
that it must b~ actually under cultivation or be occupied for purposes connected 
with agriculture. The requirement of the definition is amply satisfie

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