http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/09/1983

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) DESAI, D.A. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1093            1983 SCR  (3) 929  1984 SCC  (1)  36        1983 SCALE  (2)378

ACT:      Delhi Land  Reforms Act,  1954-S. 15  read with  s.  13 Interpretation of  Persons who  can be declared Bhumidhars.- Declaration of Bhumidhars mandatory -In spite of delay in or absence  of  declaration  the  tenant  entitled  to  acquire Bhumidhari rights acquires those rights.

HEADNOTE:      A certain  extent of  land was  acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquired land included a piece of land which  had been  mortgaged by its owners and let out by the mortgagee  to a  tenant who  in turn  had let out to the first respondent  in both the appeals. The Collector awarded compensation  to   the  land-owners.  The  first  respondent objected to  the award  on the  ground  that  since  he  had acquired the  status  of  Bhumidhar  under  the  Delhi  Land Reforms Act,  1954 he  was entitled  to receive  the  entire compensation. On an application made by the first respondent the Collector made a reference to the District Judge. In the meantime in  disposing of  an application under s. 15 of the Delhi  Land   Reforms  Act   made  by  the  land-owners  for redemption of  mortgage, the Revenue Assistant declared that the first  respondent was Bhumidhar of the land which was in his possession  as sub-lessee  with effect  from the date of commencement of that Act. The Additional District Judge held that  the  first  Respondent  was  entitled  to  the  entire compensation.  The  appeal  filed  by  the  land-owners  was dismissed by  the High Court. In this appeal the land-owners submitted that  since they  had  redeemed  the  mortgage  by resort to  the provisions contained in s. 15(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms  Act, they had become Bhumidhars under s. 15(2) of that  Act and  were, therefore,  entitled to  the  entire compensation as  Bhumidhars which  was rightly  paid by  the Collector.      Dismissing the appeals, ^      HELD:  The   first  respondent   is  entitled   to  the Bhumidhar’s portion of compensation. [937G]      Section 15(2)  of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 says that if  the proprietor  mortgagor applies for redemption of the mortgage  under sub-sec.  (1) of  sec. 15,  he shall  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

declared as  Bhumidhar only in respect of the mortgaged area which was  in the  personal cultivation of the mortgagee. In the present  case, before the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,  the mortgagee  Ram Swarup  had let the land in question to one Inder Singh and he in turn 930 had sub-let the land to the first respondent Sewa Ram and he was in  possession   of the same on the date of commencement of that  Act. Therefore, the appellants in Civil Appeal 1195 of 1970  as owners  could  not  have  become  Bhumidhars  in respect of that portion of land. [936 B-D]      Sub-sec. (4)  of sec.  15 states that where any portion of the mortgaged land has been let out to tenants they shall be declared  as Bhumidhars  of the  area let  out  to  them. Therefore, the appellants in C. A. 1195 of 1970 could not in law have  been declared as Bhumidhars under. s. 15(2) of the Delhi Land  Reforms Act  when that land was admittedly under the  cultivation   of  the  first  respondent  Sewa  Ram  as subtenant under the mortgagee’s tenant. [936 E-F]      Section  13(1)  of  the  Act  lays  down  that  on  the commencement of  that Act,  the  Deputy  Commissioner  shall declare certain  classes of tennnts as Bhumidhars who shall, with effect  from the  same date, have all the rights and be subject to  all the  liabilities conferred  or imposed  upon Bhumidhars under  that Act. There could be no doubt that the first respondent  Sewa Ram  would have  acquired  Bhumidhari rights under  s. 13(1)  of  the  Act  on  the  date  of  its commencement. Merely  because there  is some  delay  in  the Deputy Commissioner  or Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant as Bhumidhar  under the  provisions of  the Act  or  because there is  no such  declaration at all the tenant entitled to acquire such  rights under  the Act  from the  date  of  its commencement cannot  be said  to  have  not  acquired  those rights having  regard to  the words  of s.  13(2) of the Act which says  that any  person who  acquires Bhumidhari rights under any  provisions of  this Act shall have all the rights and shall  be subject  to all  the liabilities  conferred or imposed upon  Bhumidhars under this Act with effect from the date of acquisition of those rights. Subsections (2) and (4) of s.  15 cast  an obligation  on the Deputy Commissioner to declare as  Bhumidhars persons  who have  become entitled to that right  under the  provisions of the Act by admission or acquisition under  the provisions  of the Act as Bhumidhars. [936 G; 937 A, D-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1195 & 1780 & of 1970.      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and order dated the  30th Day of January, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 55 and 56 of 1963.      B. Datta  and  H.K.  Puri  for  the  Appellant  in  CA. 1195/70.      V.D. Mahajon and M.C. Dhingra for Respondent.      M.S. Gujaral,  P.D. Sharma  and Ms.  Bani  Gujaral  for Respondent in CA. 1195 & Appellant in CA. 1780/70.      H.K. Puri for Respondent in CA. 1780/70. 931      V.D. Mahajan  and M.C.  Dhingra for  Respondent in  CA. 1780/70      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VARADARAJAN,  J.   These  appeals  by  certificate  are directed against  the judgment  of a  Division Bench  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Delhi High  Court in Regular First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963 filed against the judgment dated 24.7.1961 of the Additional District  Judge,  Delhi  in  reference  made  by  the  first respondent Sewa Ram under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 which  was treated  as a  reference under s. 32 of that Act. Pursuant  to a  notification issued  under s.  4 of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894 in February or March, 1955, 2626 bighas and  14 biswas  of land  situate in  Khampur  village beyond Alipur  on the  Karnal  road  was  acquired  for  the construction of  a short-wave  transmitter for the All India Radio. Various  persons including  the appellants  in  these appeals put  forward claims  for compensation,  some of them claiming as  owners of some pieces of the land, some as non- occupancy  tenants  and  some  as  sub-tenants  inducted  by tenants or  mortgagees. The  Collector considered the claims and passed  an Award  dated 27.2.1965  and  a  supplementary Award dated  13.3.1965. Some  of the tenants objected to the award of  compensation to  the landlords  on the ground that under s.8  . Of  the Delhi  Land Reforms  Act, 1954 they had acquired the  status of Bhumidhars and as such were entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the portion of land  which was  in  their  possession  on  the  date  of acquisition to  the exclusion  of the  landlords. Thereupon, the Collector  made a reference to the District Judge, Delhi under s.  32 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.7.1956 in one case. The landlords contended before the Additional District Judge, before  whom the  Collector’s reference  came up  for consideration that  the tenants  had  no  present  right  to receive any  compensation.  The  Additional  District  Judge found  on  the  basis  of  the  tenants’  application  dated 28.10.1955 that  they had sought only a declaration under s. 13 of  the  Delhi  Land  Reforms  Act  and  that  since  the requisite declaration  in their  favour had not been made by the  Deputy  Commissioner  to  the  effect  that  they  have acquired bhumidhari  rights under  the Act they had no right to   claim compensation  for the  lands in  respect of which they claimed  to be  non-occupancy tenants.  The  Additional District Judge  found that  even if  the allegation  of  the tenants that they had applied for grant of bhumidhari rights was correct  they  had  no  present  right  and  they  were, therefore not entitled to claim the compensation. Before the Single Judge of the 932 High Court they took up the stand that the declaration under s. 14 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act had been issued and they had thus  acquired bhumidhari  rights, entitling them to the compensation. But  they failed  to prove  that claim and had not produced  any  such  declaration  dated  23.6.1956  with retrospective effect  from 20.7.1954  when  the  Delhi  Land Reforms Act  came into  force. They did not produce any such declaration before  the learned  Judges who  constituted the Division Bench  in LPA Nos. 103 and 108 of 1960. The learned Judges, therefore,  held that  they  were  not  entitled  to assail the  judgment of  the Additional  District Judge on a different ground  in the Letters Patent Appeals. They agreed with the  learned Single  Judge that  the tenants cannot lay claim to  the compensation  without proving  their case that they have  acquired  bhumidhari  rights  and  dismissed  the appeals observing,  however, that  the  observation  of  the Additional District  Judge that it will not be difficult for the tenants  to claim  the compensation if they subsequently obtained the declaration regarding acquisition of bhumidhari rights with retrospective effect is correct.      The present  appeals arise  out of  the judgment  of  a Division Bench  of the  Delhi High  Court in  Regular  First

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Appeals 55  and 56  of 1963 which had been filed against the order of  the  Additional  District  Judge,  Delhi  in  Land Acquisition Case  18 of  1959. Inder Singh and his brothers, appellants in  C.A. 1780  of 1970 which arises out of RFA 55 of 1963,  who had  been recorded  in the revenue accounts as owners of 196 bighas out Of the extent acquired had executed a possessory  mortgage over  that piece of land in favour of one Ram  Swarup. The  mortgagee Ram  Swarup had  leased that land to one Inder Singh who in turn had sub-leased that land to Sewa  Ram, who  is the  first  respondent  in  these  two appeals.  The   owners,  mortgagee,  tenant  and  sub-tenant claimed compensation  in respect  of the  said 196 bighas of land. The  Delhi Land  Reforms Act,  1954 came into force on 20.7.1954 prior  to the date of notification made under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. That Act provides for abolition of the  zamindari system  with  the  object  of  creating  a uniform body  of peasant  proprietors without intermediaries and has  brought about two categories of persons in relation to the  lands, namely, Bhumidhars and Asamis. The sub-tenant Sewa Ram  did not  either claim  any compensation before the Collector as  Bhumidhar or challenge the claim of the owners for the  compensation in  respect of  the said 196 bighas of land  which   was  under   his  cultivation,   but   claimed compensation only for the extinguishment 933 of his  right as sub-lessee. The Collector found Sewa Ram to be in possession of that extent out of the acquired land and assessed the  total compensation  in respect  thereof at Rs. 29,774.07 and  awarded that  amount to the owners and only a sum  of  Rs.  500  to  Sewa  Ram  as  compensation  for  the extinguishment of  his rights  as sub-lessee  and paid those amounts to  the owners  and Sewa  Ram on  19.3.1956. But the other claimants  35 to  56 before  the  Collector  who  were tenants of  some other  extents out  of  the  acquired  land claimed compensation  in respect  of those  extents  on  the ground that  they were prospective bhumidhars under the Land Reforms Act and challenged the rights of the owners to claim any  share   in  the  compensation.  This  claim  gave  rise ultimately to  LPA Nos.  103 and  108 of  1960  referred  to above. The  first respondent  Sewa Ram who had received only Rs. 500  on 19.3.1956 as compensation for the extinguishment of his  rights as  sub-lessee made an application before the Collector on  1.5.1956 for  a reference  being made  to  the Civil Court under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Then he claimed that  he was  entitled to the entire compensation as Bhumidhar or  to at  least a sum of Rs- 17,000 on account of improvements  effected   by  him.  The  Collector  made  the reference under  s. 18  of the  Land Acquisition  Act to the District Judge,  Delhi on  4.5.1959 in this case. Meanwhile, an application  under s.  15 of  the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was made by the owners for redemption of the possessory mortgage executed in favour of Ram Swarup before the Revenue Assistant,  Delhi   who  disposed  of  that  application  on 20.7.1959  declaring   that  the  sub-tenant  Sewa  Ram  was Bhumidhar of  the said  196 bighas  of land which was in his possession  as   sublease  with  effect  from  the  date  of commencement of  the  Delhi  Land  Reforms  Act,  1954.  The Additional District  Judge treated the reference under s. 18 as one  under s.  32 of  the Land Acquisition Act and issued notices  to   the  owners   who  had  already  received  the compensation of  Rs. 29,774.07  on 19.3.1956  and ultimately held that  the first respondent Sewa Ram was entitled to the entire compensation  and passed a decree for payment of that amount to him against the owners of that portion of the land and the Union of India for whose benefit the acquisition was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

made. The owners and the Union of India filed RFA 55 of 1963 and RFA 56 of 1963 respectively challenging that decree.      The first  point raised  by the  owners before the High Court was  that the  Revenue Assistant, Delhi who had issued the  Bhumidhari   Certificate  to  Sewa  Ram  had  not  been empowered by the Chief 934 Commissioner to exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner in that behalf and, therefore, the certificate was not valid in law.  This contention  was rejected by the learned Judges of the  High Court  on the  ground that  the  definition  of Deputy Commissioner  in s.  3 (6)  of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, as  it stood  then, included  a Collector and a Revenue Assistant, and  they held  that the  Revenue  Assistant  was competent to  declare the  sub-tenant Sewa  Ram as Bhumidhar under the  provision of the Act. The learned Judges rejected the second  contention raised  by the  owners that  the sub- lessee’s application under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred  by time.  The third  contention  raised  by  the owners was  that as  the notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  was made  after the date of commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the latter Act would not  apply in  respect of the compensation payable for the acquired  land. This contention was also rejected by the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court. The fourth contention urged on  behalf of  the owners  was that  as the sub-tenant Sewa Ram  had not made any claim for compensation before the Collector as Bhumidhar or as a prospective Bhumidhar, he was not entitled  to  claim  any  compensation  subsequently  as Bhumidhar. This  contention also was rejected by the learned Judges of  the High Court on the ground that by operation of law  the  sub-tenant  became  Bhumidhar  from  the  date  of commencement of  the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which was prior to the  date of  notification issued  under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.  The fifth  contention raised by the owners was that the decision of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated 8.12.1956 which culminated in the decision of the High Court  in   the  aforesaid   LPA  103  of  1960  constituted resjudicata. That contention was rejected on the ground that the sub-tenant  Sewa Ram  was not  a party to that decision, and he  is, therefore,  not bound  by it. None of these five objections was  urged before  us by  the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.      The only  contention urged  before us was a part of the last contention  urged before the learned Judges of the High Court, namely,  that the Additional District Judge could not have passed the decree for a sum of Rs 29,774.07 against the owners much  less the  Union of  India. The  learned  Judges allowed RFA  56 of  1963 filed  by the Union of India on the ground that  before the  amount was  actually  paid  to  the owners on 19.3.1956 the sub-tenant Sewa Ram did not make any claim to  the compensation  as Bhumidhar  or as  prospective Bhumidhar. In so far as the sub-tenant Sewa Ram is 935 concerned, the learned Judges of the High Court held that he had been  declared to  be the Bhumidhar with effect from the date of  commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in respect of  the said  196 bighas of land and he was entitled to the  compensation of Rs. 29,774.07. They dismissed RFA 55 of  1963  filed  by  the  owners.  Hence  these  appeals  by certificate.      Mr.  B.   Datta,  Senior   Counsel  appearing  for  the appellants in  C.A. 1195  of 1970,  admitted that  the first respondent Sewa Ram was in actual possession of the said 196 bighas of land on the date of the notification under s. 4 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

the Land Acquisition Act made after the date of commencement of the  Delhi Land  Reforms Act,  1954 as sub-tenant who had been inducted by the tenant to whom the land had been leased by the mortgagee Ram Swarup and submitted that subsequent to the notification  under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the mortgagors had  redeemed  the  mortgage  by  resort  to  the provisions contained  in s. 15 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act within the period of nine months prescribed therefor and had thus  become Bhumidhars  under s. 15 (2) of that Act and they are,  therefore, entitled  to the  aforesaid sum of Rs. 29,774.07  as  Bhumidhars  and  were  rightly  paid  by  the Collector on 19.3.1956.      Sections 15  (1) and (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 read thus:           "15 (1)  A mortgagee in possession of an estate or      share therein  shall cease  to have  any right  in such      estate or  share, if  the proprietor mortgagor deposits      the mortgage  money together  with interest  thereon in      Government treasury  and applies  for redemption of the      mortgage in  the proper  court, within a period of nine      months from the commencement of this Act.           (2)  If  the  proprietor  mortgagor  deposits  the      amount and  applies for  redemption as provided in sub-      section (1),  he shall  be  declared  as  Bhumidhar  in      respect of  the   mortgaged area  which was  under  the      personal cultivation  of the  mortgagee on  the date of      such application for redemption and, if any part of the      mortgaged area  was on  the said  date  let  out  to  a      tenant, such  tenant shall  be declared as Bhumidhar in      respect of the area that was so let out to him." 936      Sub-section (4) of s. 15 which has to be noticed, reads      thus:           "15 (4)  Where the  area mortgaged or part thereof      is let  out to tenants, the mortgagee shall be declared      as  the  Bhumidhar  of  the  part  under  his  personal      cultivation  and  the  tenants  shall  be  declared  as      Bhumidhars of their respective areas let out to them".      The argument  of Mr. Datta overlooks the important part of s.  15(2) of  the Delhi  Land Reforms Act which says that the mortgagor shall be declared as Bhumidhar only in respect of the  mortgaged area which was in the personal cultivation of the  mortgagee when  he submitted  that the owners became Bhumidhars of  the land under the provisions of s. 15 (2) of the Act. It is common ground that before the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the mortgagee Ram Swarup had let the land  in question  to one Inder Singh and he in turn had sub-let the land to the first respondent Sewa Ram and he was in possession  of the  same on  the date  of commencement of that Act.  Therefore, the  appellants in C.A.1195 of 1970 as owners could  not have  become Bhumidhars in respect of that portion. If  they had obtained any such declaration under s. 15 (2)  of the  Delhi Land  Reforms Act,  it could have been only by  misleading the  Court  to  believe  that  the  said portion was  under the personal cultivation of the mortgagee and not  in the  possession of any tenant under the mortgage or his  sub-tenant. The argument of Mr. Datta also overlooks the provisions of sub-section (4) of s. 15 which states that where any  portion of the mortgaged land has been let out to tenants they shall be declared as Bhumidhars of the area let out to  them. Therefore, the appellants in C.A. 1195 of 1970 could not  in law  have been declared as Bhumidhars under s. 15 (2)  of the  Delhi Land  Reforms Act  when that  land was admittedly under  the cultivation  of the  first  respondent Sewa Ram as sub-tenant under the mortgagee’s tenant. Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

13 (1)  of the  Delhi Land Reforms Act lays down that on the commencement of  that Act,  the  Deputy  Commissioner  shall declare certain  classes of tenants as Bhumidhars who shall, with effect  from the  same date, have all the rights and be subject to  all the  liabilities conferred  or imposed  upon Bhumidhars under  that Act.  An occupancy  tenant, except  a tenant under  s. 5  of the  Punjab Tenancy  Act, 1887, and a non-occupancy tenant who pays rent at the revenue rates with or without  Malikhana are  two of  the categories of tenants mentioned in  s. 13  (1) of  the Act.  It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the 937 appellants in  both the  appeals that  the first  respondent Sewa Ram would not fall under any of these two categories of tenants or  that any  distinction has been made in the Delhi Land  Reforms   Act  between  a  tenant  and  a  sub-tenant. Therefore, there could be no doubt that the first respondent Sewa Ram  would have  acquired bhumidhari rights under s. 13 (1) of  the Act  on the date of its commencement. Section 15 (2) of  the Act  was no  doubt substituted  by s.  7 of  the Central Act  IV of 1959 for the original sub-section. It has not, however, been contended before us that sub-section (4), as substituted,  will not  have  effect  from  the  date  of commencement  of   the  principal  Act,  namely,  20.7.1954. Section 13 (2) of the Act says that "every person, who after the  commencement  of  this  Act  is  admitted  to  land  as Bhumidhar  or  who  acquires  Bhumidhari  rights  under  any provisions of  this Act,  shall have  all the  rights and be subject to  all the  liabilities conferred  or imposed  upon Bhumidhars under  this Act  with effect  from  the  date  of admission or  acquisition, as  the case may be". The present case before  us is  one of  the tenant  acquiring bhumidhari rights under the Act on the date of its commencement and not of his being admitted to Bhumidhari rights after the date of commencement of the Act. Merely because there was some delay in the  Deputy Commissioner or Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant as  Bhumidhar under  the provisions  of  the  Act  or because there  is no  such declaration  at  all  the  tenant entitled to  acquire such rights under the Act from the date of its  commencement cannot  be said  to have  not  acquired those rights  having regard to the words of s. 13 (2) of the Act which  says that  any  person  who  acquires  bhumidhari rights under  any provisions  of this Act shall have all the rights and shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed  upon Bhumidhars  under this Act with effect from the date  of acquisition  of those  rights. Sub-sections (2) and  (4)   of  s.  15  cast  an  obligation  on  the  Deputy Commissioner to  declare  as  Bhumidhars  persons  who  have become entitled  to that  right under  the provisions of the Act by  admission or acquisition under the provisions of the Act  as  Bhumidhars.  In  these  circumstances,  it  is  not possible to  accept the  contention of  Mr. Datta  that  the appellants  in  C.A.  1195  who  were  owners,  have  become Bhumidhars by reason of redemption of the mortgage under the provisions of  s. 15  (1) of  the Act  and  that  the  first respondent Sewa  Ram will not be entitled to the Bhumidhar’s portion of the compensation.      Mr. M.S.  Gujral,  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the appellants in  C.A. 1780  of 1970 submitted that Inder Singh and Bhagwati 938 Prasad alone  has received  the sum  of Rs.  29,774.07  and, therefore, they  alone should  be made  liable to  pay  that amount to  the first  respondent if  the appellants  fail to succeed  in   these  appeals.   Inder  Singh  is  the  third

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

respondent in  C.A. 1195  of 1970 and the first appellant in C.A. 1780  of 1970.  Bhagwati Prasad is the second appellant in C.A.  1195 of 1970, and fourth respondent in C.A. 1780 of 1970. They  were respondents  2 and  4 in  LPA 103  of 1960. There is  no doubt an admission of these two persons that in a partition  the portion  which was under the cultivation of the first  respondent Sewa  Ram had  been allotted  to their share and  that consequently  they alone  had  received  the compensation of  Rs. 29,774.07. But that is a matter between the appellants  in these appeals and those two persons Inder Singh  and   Bhagwati  Prasad.  It  cannot  bind  the  first respondent Sewa  Ram. Therefore,  the request of Mr. Gujaral cannot be complied with.      The appeals  fail for  the reasons  mentioned above and are dismissed  with the  first respondent’s  costs. Advocate fee one set. H.S.K.                                    Appeals dismissed. 939