http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DEO NANDAN & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM SARAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/03/2000

BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL, N. SANTOSH HEGDE.,

JUDGMENT:

Kirpal, J. :

       The  question  involved in this case pertains to  the interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as the said provisions existed in 1964-1965.

       Briefly  stated  the facts are that one Bechan was  a sirdar of agricultural land which consisted of six plots.  On 25th  August, 1964, he filed an application under Section 134 of  the  said Act before the revenue authorities and paid  an amount  equal to 10 times the land revenue and prayed that he should be declared a bhumidar.  It is an admitted case of the parties  that  it is only on such declaration  taking  effect that he could sell the said land.

       After  the  said application had been filed  and  the land  revenue deposited, Bechan executed a sale deed on  25th August, 1964 selling the said land to the plaintiffs, who are the  appellants  herein,  Before any order  could  be  passed granting  the  bhumidari  certificate, Bechan  died  on  15th September,  1964.  The problem for the plaintiffs arose  when on  5th January, 1965, the sanad was issued under section 137 in the name of Bechan with effect from 25th August, 1964, the date  when the said land revenue had been paid along with the application for grant of bhumidari certificate.

       The  appellants/plaintiffs  then filed a suit in  the trial  court challenging the validity of the sale deed  dated 5th  January,  1965 in favour of the  respondents/defendants. The  trial  court  dismissed  the suit  having  come  to  the conclusion  that  the appellants herein had not  derived  any valid  title to the property in question because on the  date when  the sale deed was executed on 25th August, 1964  Bechan had  not  been declared as a bhumidar under Section 137.   In appeal,  the  lower appellate court reversed the decision  of the  trial  court and decreed the suit.  In arriving at  this conclusion, the lower appellate court was of the opinion that the  certificate  which was granted under Section  137  would relate  back  to the date of the application and,  therefore, the  appellants herein had acquired the title on 25th August,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

1964 and, conseuently, the sale deed of that very land on 5th January, 1965 executed by the widow of Bechan was not valid.

       The  High  Court,  in a second  appeal  being  filed, reversed  the decision of the lower appellate court and  held that  on 25th August, 1964 Bechan had not acquired any right, title  or interest which he could transfer because the  order on his application for grant of the bhumidari certificate had been  passed  only on 9th February, 1965.  In coming to  this conclusion,  the High Court relied upon a Full Bench decision of  the Allahabad High Court reported as Banshidhar Vs.  Smt. Dhirajadhari and Others, 1971 All.L.J.  937 and also a Single Judge  decision  reported as Mobin Khan Vs.  Chunnu Khan  and Others.   1981 All.L.J.  402.  Hence, this appeal by  special leave.

       As we have already indicated, the decision in this appeal depends upon the interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. These Sections read as follows :

..........L.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......JR           "S.   134.   Acquisition  of  bhumidhari  rights  by  a           sirdar.   (1)  If  a  sirdar  belonging  to  the  class           mentioned  in clause (a) of Sec.  131 pays or offers to           pay  to  the credit of the State Government  an  amount           equal  to ten times the land revenue payable or  deemed           to  be payable on the date of application for the  land           for  which  he  is  the   sirdar,  he  shall,  upon  an           application  duly  made in that behalf to an  Assistant           Collector,  be  entitled, with effect from the date  on           which  the amount has been depoosited, to a declaration           that  he has acquired the rights mentioned in Sec.  137           in respect of such land.

         Provided  that  the rights to pay or offer to  pay  the           amount  aforementioned  shall  cease on the  expiry  of           three  months from the date to be notified by the State           Government.

         Explanation  I  - In this sub-section  ’land’  includes           shares in land.

         Explanation  II  - For the purpose of this section  the           land revenue payable shall -

         (a)  in  respect of land referred to in the proviso  to           clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec.  246 be an amount           arrived  at  after  all the increases have  been  given           effect to;  and

         (b)  in  respect of land to which the proviso  to  Sec.           247  applies,  be  an amount determined  at  hereditary           rates under that section.

         (2)  The  amount referred to in sub-section (1) may  be           paid in case or, if the State Government so prescribes,           in form of bounds or otherwise."

L.......I.....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.J         S. 137. Grant of certificate. - (1) If the application has been duly made and the Assistant Collector is satisifed that the applicant is entitled to the declaration mentioned in section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

134, he shall grant a certificate to that effect.

       (2)   Upon the grant of the certificate, under sub-section (1), the sirdar shall, from the date on which the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 134 has been deposited

........L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T...J

       (a) become and be deemed to be a bhumidhar of the         holding or the share in respect of which the         certificate has been granted; and

       (b) be liable for payment of such reduced amount on         account of land revenue for the holding or his share         therein, as the case may be, one-half of the amount         of land revenue payable or deemed to be payable by         him therefor on the date of application.

L.......I............T.......T.......T.......T.......T....J         Provided  further that in the cases referred to  in Explanation  II of section 134 the sirdar shall, during the period  a  reduced  amount is payable  in  accordance  with section  246  or 247, be liable for payment of one-half  of the amount payable from time to time.

       Explanation.   For  the purposes of clause (b)  the land  revenue  payable  by a sirdar on the  date  aforesaid shall,  where it exceeds an amount double that computed  at the  hereditary rates applicable, be deemed to be equal  to such amount.

       (2A)  Where  the amount referred to in  sub-section (1)  of  section 134 is deposited on a date other than  the first  day  of  the  agricultural year,  the  land  revenue payable  by  the bhumidhar under clause (b) of  sub-section (2) for the remainder of the agricultural year in which the amount  is deposited shall be determined in such manner  as may be prescribed."

       Section 134, from its plain language, indicates and shows  that on the application being made and 10 times  the land  revenue being paid, the sirdar becomes entitled ’with effect  from  the  date  on   which  the  amount  had  been deposited’ to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned  in Section 137 of the Act.  The Section  clearly specifies  the date with effect from which the rights would stand  acquired:   The date is the one on which the  amount contemplated  by  Section 134 is deposited.   This  clearly obviates  the  uncertainty  of the point of time  when  the title  is  transferred by fixing the dateas being  the  one when the amount is deposited.  It would be immaterial as to when the declaration under Section 137 is made because that declaration must necessarily take effect from the date when the amount is deposited.

       Whatever little doubt there may be in this construction of section 134 is eliminated by the perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 137. It is to be noticed that, as observed by the lower appellate court, that before amendment in 1962, sub-section (2) of Section 137 of the Act provided that it is only upon the grant of certificate under sub-section (1) of Section 137 that the sirdar shall from the date thereof become or be deemed to be a bhumidarof the holding or the share in respect of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

which the certificate has been granted. The amendment of sub-section (2) of section 137 by the Amendment Act 21 of 1962 with effect from 13th December, 1962 brought Section 137(2) in line with Section 134. The two provisions read together clearly provide that as and when the certificate under Section 137 is granted, it must relate back and be effective from the date on which the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 134 has been deposited.

       It is no doubt true that in the Full bench decision in  Banshidhar Vs.  Smt.  Dhirajadhari and Others  (supra), in the Single Judge decision in Mobin Khan Vs.  Chunnu Khan and Others (supra) and in the decision in Raghunandan Singh and  another  Vs.  Vashwant Singh, 1978  Revenue  Decisions 183,  a different view has been expressed by the  Allahabad High  Court.  In the Full Bench decision, the view taken is that  it  is from the date when the order is  passed  under Section  137  that the sirdar becomes a bhumidar.   In  the latter  two cases, it has been held that if after filing of the  application and making payment of the land revenue the applicant  dies,  then  certificate in his name  cannot  be granted.  In our opinion, the said decisions run counter to the  plain language and meaning of Sections 134 and 137  as they  stood  at  the  relevant   point  of  time.   When  a certificate  is  issued  under  Section  137,  it  in  fact recognises the position as on the date when the application was  made and the payment contemplated under Section 134(1) was  deposited.  The certificate, in other words, will have a retrospective effect and would relate back to the date of the  application.  There was nothing to prevent the revenue authorities  from  allowing  the  application  filed  under Section  134(1)  on  the day when it  was  presented.   THe underlying intention of the legislature, therefore, clearly is  that  as and when the said application is accepted  and order  is passed under Section 137, it must relate back  to the  date when the application was filed.  Such a situation is  not  unknown to law.  Mr.  Prem Prasad Juneja,  Learned counsel  for  the appellants, as an analogy, has drawn  our attention  to order 22 Rule 6, C.P.C.  which provides  that if  any of the parties to a suit dies after the hearing has been  completed and before the judgment is pronounced,  the suit  would  not abate.  The doctrine of relation back  has been  incorporated  in  Sections 134 and 137  of  the  U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

       We  are,  therefore, of the opinion that the  lower appellate  court  had rightly interpreted Sections 134  and 137  and the High Court was in error in overruling the said decision.   For  the  aforesaid   reasons,  the  appeal  is allowed,  the  judgment of the High Court is set aside  and the  decision of the lower appellate court is restored, the effect  of  which  would  be that the  suit  filed  by  the appellants would stand decreed.