STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RAJA ANAND BRAHMA SHAH

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 16-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADF.SH 
v. 
RAJA ANAND BRAHMA SHAH 
September 16, 1966. 
[K. SunnA RAO, c: J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIKRI, 
V. RAMASWAMI AND J. M. SHEi.AT, JJ.j 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (I of 1951), 4f 
.amended by U.P. Act (14 of 1958) and U.P. Act (I of 1964) s. 3(8)-
"Estate''-lf covered by Art. 31A (2)(a) (I) and (lll)of th• Constitution-
. Constitution of India, 1950, AN. 3!A-lf saves Act. 
The Slate of Uttar Pradesh issued two r,otilications in 1953, by one 
of which the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 
1950, \l.'as cxrended to certain areas, in v.·hich. Pargana Agori \\th1ch was 
O\VDcd by the respondent v.ra.<: situate, and by the other, it was directed that 
all "estales" in the area including the Pargana should vest in the State. 
The respondent challenged the notification. by a writ petition on the ground 
that the Pargana was not an estate within s. 3 ( 8) of the Act. While the 
matter was pending in the High Court, 
the dcli.oitioo in s. 3 (8) WU 
amended by U.P. Act 14 of 1958, and while appeals were pending in this 
Court, by U.P. Act I of 1964, by which, the Pargana was deemed lo be 
an "estate". The amendments had retrospective effect from !st July 1952. 
The appellant-State contended that Act I of 1964 could not be iJ11.. 
pugned because, the Pargana was an "estate" either within Art. 31A(2)(a) 
(i) or (iii). 
HELD : The forest land or waste land in the Pargana could not be 
·deemed to be an estate within Art. 31A(2)(a)(iii) unless it was held or 
·ret for purposes ancillary to agriculture. 
But the entire Pargana is " 
grant in the nature of a jagir or inam, having been held by the respondent's 
ancestor under saoads granting the land and the land revenue to him for 
services rendered to the British, and consequently, is an "estate" within 
Art. 31A(2)(a) (il of the Constitution. [368 D; 370 G-H; 371 F-HJ 
Thal.ur Amar Slnghji v. State of Rajasrhan [1955] 2 S.C.R. 303, follow-
ed. 
The acquisition of the Pargana was a necessaiy atep in the implemenla-
tioo of agrarian reforms contemplated by Art. 31A Therefore, U.P. A.ct 1 
of 1964 can claim the protection of Art. 3 IA, and the two notifications 
must be upheld. [372 A-CJ 
CM1. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 653 to 655 
of 1964. 
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated November I, 1962 
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 267 and 292 
of 1957. 
C. K. Daphtary, Auorney-Genera/, Shanti Bhushan, Advocate-
Genera/, U.P. and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 
653 and 654of1964) and the respondents (in C.A. No. 655of1964). 
A. K. Sen, B. R. L. Iyengar, V. P. Misra, S. K. Mehta and 
K. L. Mehta, for the respondent (in C.As. Nos. 653 and 654 of 
1964) and the appellant (in C. A. No. 655of1964). 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
U. P. STATE v. RAJA ANAND (Sikri, !.) 
363 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. These appeals by certificates granted by the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad raise one principal question: 
Whether the amendment of the definition of the word "estate"· in 
clause (8) of s. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act) 
made bys. 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1963, hereinafter called the impugned 
Act, is within the definition of the word "estate" in Art. 31A(2) of 
the Constitution? 
These appeals arise out of a petition filed by Raja 
Anand 
Brahma Shah of Agori Barhar-Raj under Art. 226 of the Consti-
tution. The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification No. 
3549/1/A-499 dated June 30 1953, extending the provisions of 
Reforms Act, 1950,. to apply to the areas to the South of Kaimur 
Range. It then issued another notification No. 3949/{1)-A-499-
1949 dated July 1953, directing the vesting of all "estates" situated to 
the south of Kaimur including the Pargana Agori, owned by the 
petitioner. The Pargana Agori is comprised of 123 villages. At 
the time the petition was filed and the judgment of the Single Judge, 
dated November 8, 1957, was delivered, s. 3(8) of the Reforms 
Act stood as follows:-
" 'Estate' means the area included under an entry in any 
of the registers prepared and maintained under clause (a), 
I!: 
(b), (c) or (d) of s. 32 of the United Provinces Land 
Revenue Act, 1901, or in the registers maintained under 
clause (e) of the said section in so far as it relates to a 
perma

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