Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2831   OF 2009 (Arising Out of SLP (C) 11653 of 2008)

State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand) …. Appellant

Versus

Rabindra Singh …. Respondent WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2832    OF 2009 (Arising Out of SLP (C) 25729 of 2008)

State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand) & Anr. …. Appellants

Versus

Mohan Lal …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This judgment will  dispose of the SLP (C) 11653 of 2008 as also  

SLP (C)  25729 of  2008 since both the appeals involve identical  points  

regarding the applicability of UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised  

Occupants) Act,  1972 to the land possessed by the respondents,  more  

particularly,  the lands vested in or  entrusted to the management  of  the  

Gaon Sabha and or any other local authority under any law relating to land  

tenures.

1

3. By way of the present appeal the State of Uttar Pradesh, now State  

of  uttarakhand challenges the judgment  of  the High Court  whereby the  

High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein Shri  

Rabindra Singh.

4. Factual scenario is as follows:

The dispute relates to a land measuring 4.10 bighas in Khasra Plot  

No.1371/24/1 situated in village Saran. The said land was in possession of  

the respondent since 1384 Fasli.   The High Court has allowed the Writ  

Petitions by these two judgments holding that  such lands would not be  

covered  within  the  definition  of  “public  premises”  under  the  UP  Public  

Premises  (Eviction  of  Unauthorised  Occupants)  Act,  1972  (hereinafter  

called the ‘Public Premises Act’,  for short).   Basically the question boils  

down  as  to  whether  the  lands  which  are  covered  by  the  definition  in  

Section 3(14) of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950  

can be said to be public premises and, therefore, covered under the Public  

Premises Act.   

5. We shall  take  up the  facts  in  this  appeal  arising  out  of  SLP (C)  

11653  of  2008.   The  respondent  Rabindra  Singh  possessed  

aforementioned  land  since  the  year  1384  Fasli.   He  claimed  to  be  in  

cultivating possession like other respondents. He was served with notice  

under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises Act directing him to show cause  

as  to  why  he  should  not  be  evicted  from  the  land  Khasra  plot  no.  

2

1371/24/1, measuring 4.10 bighas situated in village Saran, Tehsil Bazpur  

as he was in unauthorized occupation of  the land.   He filed his written  

statements  before  the  prescribed  authority,  namely,  Sub-Divisional  

Magistrate, Kashipur contending that he was also in possession of land  

measuring 26.13 bighas and the said land and the disputed land became a  

compact plot and that he was in possession of the said plot since 1960,  

and, therefore, he was prepared to get it regularized.  Along with the writ  

statement, he also filed the map and Khatauni of the land. In the evidence  

led  before  the  authority  he  supported  his  case  by  showing  that  the  

disputed land was earlier in the shape of a drain and he had improved it  

and made it capable of cultivation.  There are two witnesses examined by  

him to support his case of continuous possession. As against this, in his  

evidence  the  Patwari  of  the  village  stated  that  the  respondent  was  in  

unauthorized  possession  since  1384  Fasli  and  was  for  public  utility.  

Without  giving  any  reasons,  the  Sub  Divisional  Magistrate,  Nainital  

straightway  recorded  that  the  possession  of  Rabindra  Singh  was  

unauthorized and, therefore, in exercise of the power under sub Section 1  

of  Section  5  of  the  Public  Premises  Act  he  directed  to  evict  the  writ-

petitioner within 30 days.

6. Writ  petitioner  filed  an  appeal  before  the  District  Judge  Nainital  

wherein  the  District  Judge  without  any  discussion  recorded  that  the  

disputed land was public premise and the occupant of the appellant was  

3

under  Class  IV  and  since  the  appellant  did  not  have  any  authority  to  

occupy he could not resist his eviction. The appeal was dismissed.   

7. The matter was taken up before the Allahabad High Court by way of  

a writ  petition.  Eventually  since the land was in newly  created State of  

Uttarakhand the matter was transferred to the Uttarakhand High court.  It is  

contended that the High Court also noted the contentions raised on behalf  

of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) that no notice could be issued in  

respect of the land over eviction as the land was in cultivating possession  

of the concerned cultivator.  It was contended in the counter affidavit on  

behalf  of  the  State  (appellant  herein)  that  the  land  in  dispute  was  not  

allotted  to  the  writ  petitioner  and,  therefore,  his  occupation  was  

unauthorized and he was recorded as Class IV tenant since 1384 Fasli.  It  

was also pointed out that the writ petitioner had no right to regularization in  

respect  of  the  land  of  which  he  was  in  possession.   The  High  Court,  

however, relied on the earlier judgment dated 25.05.2006 passed in Writ  

Petition  No.  3235  of  2001,  namely,  Krishnakant  v/  First  Additional  

District Judge, Nainital which was disposed of along with 41 other writ  

petitions. There the Court had held that the agricultural land which was  

occupied  by  a  tenure  holder  hence  the  proceedings  under  the  Public  

Premises  Act  were  not  applicable  and  the  said  unauthorized  occupant  

could be evicted only under the provisions of the UP Zamindari Abolition  

and Land Reforms Act, 1950.  It was further noted by the High Court that  

such a view was taken by the Allahabad High Court  in  Baldeo Raj  V.  

4

State of UP  &  Ors. 1984 AWC 568 and Kripal Singh V. DJ Nainital &  

Ors. 1988 RD 188.  The High Court further took note of the definition of the  

term ‘public premises’ as well as the term ‘land’ as defined in UP Jamindari  

Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 covered by Section 3 (14) of the  

Act.  The High Court also took note that it was never denied by the State  

that  the  land  in  question  was  in  cultivating  possession  of  the  writ  

petitioners.  The  High  Court  further  noted  that  the  land  vested  in  or  

entrusted to the Gaon Sabha and local authority or under any other law  

relating to the land tenure was excluded from the operation of the Public  

Premises Act and, therefore, the agricultural land belonging to the Gaon  

Sabha could not be said to be the land covered under the Public Premises.  

The High Court, therefore, chose to follow the aforementioned decisions in  

Baldeo Raj’s case (cited supra) and Kripal Singh’s case (cited supra).  

8. In the other case the judgment in Krishnakant’s case (cited supra)  

with which as many as 41 other cases were decided and disposed of is  

challenged. In Krishnakant’s case (cited supra)  also the learned Single  

Judge after  discussing the provisions of  both the Act  referred to by us  

earlier as also the definition of the term ‘premises’ in the Public Premises  

Act  came to  the  similar  conclusion.   The  learned  single  Judge  of  the  

Uttarankhand  High  Court,  hence,  relied  upon  the  Baldeo  Raj’s  case  

(cited supra)  as also  Kripal Singh’s case (cited supra).  It  is on that  

basis  that  in  both  the  cases  the  Writ  Petitions  filed  by  the  cultivating  

5

possessors  were  allowed.   Both  these  judgments  have  fallen  for  our  

consideration.

9. Smt.  Pinki  Anand,  learned  Senior  Advocate  along  with  Shri  P.N.  

Gupta and Shri Vaibhav Jain assailed the impugned judgments.  We had a  

specific  query  to  the  learned  Senior  counsel  as  to  whether  the  

aforementioned  relied  upon  judgments  in  Baldeo  Raj’s  case  (cited  

supra)  and  Kripal Singh’s case (cited supra) were challenged by the  

said judgment.  The learned Senior counsel was unable to answer as to  

what happened to these judgments.  We, therefore, presume that those  

judgments are still held good law and have been accepted as such by at  

least the State of Uttar Pradesh.  It must be noted that Baldev Raj’s case  

(cited  supra) continues  to  be  dominating  the  scene  since  1984  while  

Kripal Singh’s case (cited supra)  continues to be in the field from 1988.  

It, therefore, goes without saying that the interpretation put forward by the  

Allahabad High Court on these premises holds good for about 25 years on  

the legal scenario.  We must, therefore, take this factor also into account  

as to whether it would be proper for us to disturb the settled law which is  

ruling the field for last 25 years.

10.  We have seen both the aforementioned decisions of the Allahabad  

High Court in Baldeo Raj’s case as well as in Kripal Singh’s case (cited  

supra).  The factual situation regarding the position of the respondents is  

absolutely identical.  Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the  

6

law laid down in both these cases squarely apply to the facts of the present  

case.   

11. We will  now proceed to decide upon the correctness of these two  

judgments.  In  Baldeo Raj’s case the learned Single Judge considered  

the  expression  “public  premises”  in  Section  2(e)  of  the  Act  as  was  

amended by the U.P. Act No.28 of 1976.  It was found that the definition as  

amended excluded the land vested in or entrusted to the management of a  

Gaon Sabha or any other local authority under any law relating to land  

tenures.  This the learned Judge found on the basis of clause (i) of the  

definition in that Section.  The learned Judge then straightaway came to  

the conclusion that the provisions contained in Section 4/6, U.P. Zamindari  

Abolition and Land Reforms Act provided that the right, title or interest of  

the intermediaries came to be vested in the State and State thereby also  

acquired right, title or interest over the land held as ‘Talab’ or ‘Jheel’.  The  

learned  Judge  further  rightly  found  that  Section  117,  U.P.  Zamindari  

Abolition and Land Reforms Act made it clear that the superintendence,  

management and control of such land was vested in Gaon Sabha.  It was  

also  noted  that  the  State  Government  was  empowered  to  transfer  this  

superintendence,  management  and  control  from Gaon  Sabha  to  some  

other local authority or vice versa.  Relying on the Khatauni in 1383-85 fasli  

the  learned  Judge  found  that  the  land  in  question  was  recorded  as  

Talab/Jheel.   The  learned  Judge  further  noted  that  the  names  of  the  

petitioners in that cases were recorded in the Khasra of 1386 fasli under  

7

class 4 of the Khatauni.  The learned Judge then proceeded to consider  

the provisions of  Section 122-B which provided for  the eviction against  

those who were in unauthorized occupation over such land.  On that basis  

the learned Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the definition of  

“public premises” in the Public Premises Act deliberately excluded from its  

purview the land vesting in Gaon Sabha or some other local authority for  

which  provisions  existed  in  the  law  relating  to  land  tenures  and  the  

provisions  of  Public  Premises  Act  could  not  be  pressed  in  service  for  

ousting the tenure holder.  More or less the same conclusion has been  

reached  in  Kripal  Singh’s  case where  the  learned  Judge  specifically  

referred to the pleadings of the parties and came to the conclusion that the  

tenure  holder  therein  was  classified  as  Sirdar  and  had  become  a  

Bhumidar.  The definition of “premises” in the Public Premises Act given  

under Section 2(b) came to be considered which is as under:

“2(b) “Premises means any land (including any forest land or  trees  standing  thereon,  or  covered  by  water,  or  a  road  maintained by the State Government or land appurtenant to  such road) or any building and includes:

i) the  garden,  grounds,  and  out-houses,  if  any  appertaining to such building or part of a building, and

ii) any  fitting  or  fixtures  affixed  to  or  any  furniture  supplied with such building or part of a building for the  more beneficial enjoyment thereof:

but does not include any land which for the time is  held by a tenureholder under any law relating to  land-tenture (emphasis supplied)

8

i) is  vested  in  or  entrusted  to  the  management,  of Gaon Sabha or any other local  authority or

ii) is held by a tenure holder under the United  Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, the Uttar Pradesh  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Urban  Areas  Zamindari  Abolition  and  Land  Reforms  Act,  1956,  the  Jaunsar-Bawar  Zmindari  Abolition  and  Land  Reforms Act, 1956, the Kumaun and Uttarkhand  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960,  the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holidings Act,  1953, or the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling  on Land Holdings Act, 1960;”

 Section 2(e) was also considered which is as under:

“2(e) Public  premises means any premises belonging to  or  taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State  Government and includes any premises belonging to or taken  on lease by or on behalf of  

i) any company defined

ii) any local authority;

iii) any corporation (not being a company as defined  in  Section  3  of  the  Companies  Act,  1956,  or  a  local  authority) owned or controlled by the State Government,  or  

iv) any society…………….

And also includes

i) Nazul land or any other premises entrusted to the  management of a local authority (including any building  built  with  Government  funds on land belonging to the  State Government after the entrustment of the land to  the local authority, not being land vested in or entrusted  to the management of a Gaon Sabha or any other local  authority under any law relating to land tenure);

9

ii) any premises acquired under the Land Acquisition  Act , 1894 with the consent of the State Government for  a  company  (as  defined  in  that  Act)  and  held  by  that  company under an agreement executed under Section  41  of  that  providing  for  re-entry  by  the  State  Government in certain conditions.”

Section 2(a) and 2(e) excluded the operation of Public Premises Act  

in  respect  of  the  lands  covered  by  U.P.  Zamindari  Abolition  and  Land  

Reforms  Act,  1950.   The  learned  Judge  has  further  given  a  detailed  

explanation as to why the said exclusion became clearer.   The learned  

Judge states:

“To me, it appears that the provision for excluding land of such  tenure holders has a special purpose.  For a tenure holder this  land is  generally  a source of  his  and his  family’s  livelihood  particularly in our State of Uttar Pradesh where the majority of  citizens consists of Agriculturist.  Needless to say, the Act has  a  drastic  method  of  ejectment.   Though  a  trespasser  can  certainly be ejected under the common law – whether it be civil  or revenue, the Act, however, sets aside those procedures and  instead  empowers  the  prescribed  authority  to  proceed  in  a  manner which lays down a much quicker and faster method of  ejecting a trespasser.  In the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act we find  sufficient safeguards for the Gaon Sabha and other authorities  to eject a trespasser, if the land can be claimed to have vested  in them (see Section 122B) (Emphasis supplied by us).  Thus  the land of such tenure holders as the petitioner should not be  governed by the provisions of the Act, appears to be one of  the main objectives,  to attain which the exception has been  carved out in the definition clause by the legislature.   Even  from  the  other  provisions  of  the  Act  it  is  clear  that  the  possession alone whether  of  the original  Adhivasi  or  of  the  transferee Adhivasi has to be seen by the Prescribed Authority  and  attempt  to  trace  his  title  will  be  futile  in  the  present  proceedings under the Act.  Under the circumstances it must  be held that but for the stop which may be available under the  land  tenure  laws,  the  provisions  of  the  Act  will  be  wholly  inapplicable for the ejectment of the petitioner.”

10

12. We have  very  carefully  considered  the  judgments  as  well  as  the  

provisions and we are in no doubt that the view taken by the Allahabad  

High  Court  was  a  correct  view of  the  matter.   We fully  agree  with  the  

reasons given by the Allahabad High Court in both Baldeo Raj and Kripal  

Singh’s cases and, therefore, hold that the land covered under the U.P.  

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not be governed by  

the Public Premises Act, more particularly in view of the specific exclusion  

as  provided in  Sections  2(b)  and  2(e)  thereof.   Even if  Section  2(e)  is  

broadly read, the land held by Tenure holder is not covered.  It is axiomatic  

that if the land held by a tenure-holder under any law relating to land tenure  

is not “premise”, then it  cannot become “public premises” under Section  

2(e) of the Act.  We are satisfied with the impugned judgments which wholly  

rely on the above mentioned two decisions of the Allahabad High Court.  

13. Both the appeals filed by the State of  Uttarakhand deserve to be  

dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no orders as  

to costs.

………………………………..J. (Markandey Katju)

………………………………..J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

New Delhi; April 27, 2009  

11