V.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 07-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. 
A 
v. 
DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
FEBRl.JARY 7, 20CO 
(S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy and Land Laws : 
U.P. Zamindhari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950-Sections 7, 
9, 4 and 117-Claim of Sirdari rights-Vesting of property in Gaon C 
Sabha-Property which originally vested in the State Govemment on account 
of the notification issued under section 4 of the Act could vest in Gaon Sabha 
by notification issued under section 117 of the Act-Land in dispute was the 
land appurtenant to the staff quarter of the sugar mills Land, at Ito stage 
vested in the State, therefore, cannot vest in Gaon Sabha-Further lease D 
executed by Gaon Sabha of such land is illegal. 
Section 198-Consolidation Authorities-Jurisdiction of-Held, can 
consider validity of lease executed by Gaon Sabha--U.P. Consolidation of 
Holdings Act, 1953. 
Dispute arose during consolidation proceedings in respect of certain 
plob. One 'D', the predecessur-in-interest of Respondents 2 to 5, filed 
objection' claiming sirdari rights of the p!1Jts 1111 thr basis of lease executed 
in his favour by the Chairman, Land Management Committee under 
Section 1911 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 
The appellants contended before the consolidation ofticer that the plots 
E 
F 
had never vested in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, 1950. Consolidation Ofticer decided in favour of the 
appellants. 'D' filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement 
Officer (Consolidation). His revision petition was also dismissed by the 
Deputy Director (Consolidation). Then challenging the order 'D' filed a G 
writ petition. The High Court remanded the case to the Deputy Director . 
(Consolidation). The Deputy Director reversing the earlier judgments held 
that 'D' had become sirdar of the disputed land. Aggrieved by the order 
appellant filed a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
Hence this appeal. 
H 
673 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. By virtue of the Nc,tification issued under Section 4 of the 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, well, trees in abadi and 
buildings or the site of the building which are fictionally settled with the 
owner thereof including the land appurtenant would not vest in the State. 
B The right of easement available under Section 7 of the Act would continue 
to be available to the person who had been enjoying that right on the 
appurtenant land for the better enjoyment of the land in his possession 
and such right would not be destroyed on account of vesting of all rights, 
title and interest in the State. [691-B-C] 
c 
1.2. By virtue of section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, 1951 only such land etc. would vest in the Gaon Sabha 
as mentioned in the Gazette Notification issued under Section 117 of the 
Act. Further the property which had originally vested in the State on 
account of the Notification issued under Section 4 could be vested in the 
D Gaon Sabha by a Notification issued under Section 117. Thus, before a 
property is vested in the Gaon Sabha it should first vest in the State 
Government under Section 6 of Act. [694-B-C] 
1.3. In view of the provisions of Section 7(aa) and Section 9 of the 
E U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land in dispute was 
held by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) 
to be the land appurtenant to the Staff Quarter of the Sugar Mill, from 
and before the date of vesting, thUIS the land did not vest in the State under 
Section 6 of the Act as a consequence of the Notification issued under 
Section 4 of the Act. The easement right available to the Sugar Mill in 
F respect of the plots in question would also not stand destroyed and would 
continue to be enjoyed by the Mill. That being so, the property, at no stage, 
vested in the state and, therefore, it would not vest in the Gaon Sabha and 
the Gaon Sabha had no jurisdiction to grant lease of those plots to the 
respondent. Such a lease was a void document from the inception and, 
G consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities was not 
affected. [697-B; 695-E; 697-C] 
Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh & Ors., [1974) 1 SCR 339; 
Jagannath Shukla v. Sita Ram Pande & Ors., (1969) A.L.J. 768; Ramanand 
v. D.D.C. & Ors., (1987) Revenue Decision 430; Dulari Devi v. Ja

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