http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HAKIM ALI AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/12/1990

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  972            1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 566  1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 565 JT 1991 (1)    22  1990 SCALE  (2)1279

ACT:     U.P.   Zamindari   Abolition  and  Land   Reforms   Act, 1950--Section   229-B---Dispute   relating   to   bhumidhari rights--Competency  of Board of Revenue to refer dispute  to arbitration.     U.P.  Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms  Act,  1950- Sections-293 and 339(c)--Scope and construction  of--Differ- ence in terminology--Effect of.     U.P.  Land  Revenue Act, 1901--Chapter IX   Whether  ap- plicable to the proceedings under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,  1950--Legislative intention of.

HEADNOTE:     The  father of appellant No. 1 instituted a  suit  under Section  229-B  of  the U.P. Zamindari  Abolition  and  Laud Reforms  Act, 1950 against respondent No. 2, for a  declara- tion that he was Bhumidhar in respect of suit-lands.  During the  pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff  died  and the appellants were brought on record as the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by the S.D.O. On appeal, it was decreed by the Additional Commissioner.     Respondent No. 2 flied a second appeal before the  Board of  Revenue,  and on the joint request of the  parties,  the dispute was referred to arbitration.’ Respondent No.  5--the arbitrator  gave  his award. Objections were  flied  by  the appellants  against the award, and one of them was that  the reference  to  arbitration was bad in law  inasmuch  as  the Board  of Revenue had no jurisdiction to refer  the  dispute and  the award given by the arbitrator was void and  without jurisdiction.  The objection of the appellants  was  however rejected.     The  appellants flied a writ petition,  challenging  the decision of the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by  the High  Court holding that in view of Section 203 of the  U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 the provisions of the Arbitration Act were  applicable to cases coming up for hearing  before  the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue had jurisdic- 567 tion to refer a dispute involved in second appeal under  the Zamindari Abolition Act to arbitration.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

   Aggrieved  by the decision of the High Court the  appel- lants appealed to this Court, contending that Section 293 of the  Zamindari Abolition Act expressly limited the  applica- bility  of the provisions of Chapters IX and X of  the  Land Revenue  Act to applications and proceedings made  or  taken under Chapter X of the Zamindari Abolition Act; that Section 203  of  the Land Revenue Act would be  applicable  only  to applications  and proceedings made or taken under Chapter  X (Sections  241 to 294) of the Zamindari Abolition Act;  that the provisions of Section 203 of the Land Revenue Act  would not  be  applicable to second appeal arising out of  a  suit fried  under  Section 229-B of the Zamindari  Abolition  Act which  was  not a proceeding taken under Chapter  X  of  the Zamindari  Abolition  Act; and that the  difference  in  the language  used by the legislature in Sections 293, 339,  341 of the Zamindari Abolition Act indicates limited applicabil- ity of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act to proceedings and applications under the Zamindari Abolition Act. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. Arbitration is a recognized mode of  settlement of disputes. It enables the parties to resolve their dispute by  a  tribunal selected by them. The  considerations  which justify  reference  to arbitration of  disputes  arising  in applications and proceedings under Chapter X of the  Zamind- ari Abolition Act are equally applicable to applications and proceedings under other provisions of the Act. [576D-E]     2. Section 293 cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with Section 339. In clause (c) of Section 339 it is  prescribed that with effect from the date of vesting  in respect  of  any  area, the Land Revenue Act  shaH,  in  its application  to  such area, be deemed to be  and  is  hereby amended  to the extent mentioned in column 3 of the List  II of the Schedule III of the said Act. [573B-C]     3.  The High Court has rightly taken the view  that  the Board of Revenue had ample jurisdiction under Section 203 of the  Land  Revenue Act to refer to arbitration  the  dispute involved in the second appeal pending before it which  arose out of a suit under Section 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition Act. [576F-G] 4.  The distinction based on the difference  in  terminology used in 568 Sections 293 and 339(c) of the Zamindari Abolition Act  only indicates that section 293 is limited in its scope in apply- ing the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the Land  Revenue Act  to applications and proceedings under Chapter X of  the Zamindari  Abolition  Act; whereas section  339(c)  is  much wider in amplitude in as much as it makes all the provisions of the Land Revenue Act applicable to the area to which  the provisions  of  the  Zamindari Abolition  Act  are  applied. [573G-574B]     5. The width and amplitude of the provision contained in Section  339(c)  of the Zamindari Abolition  Act  cannot  be curtailed  by reference to Sections 293 and 341 of the  Act. [574D-E]     6.  There  is  nothing in the  provisions  contained  in Chapter  IX  of the Land Revenue Act which may  require  re- stricting their application to applications and  proceedings under Chapter X of the Zamindari Abolition Act. Some of  the matters  covered by Chapter IX of the Land Revenue Act  have been  dealt with in Chapter XII of the  Zamindari  Abolition Act but most of the matters referred to in Chapter IX of the Land Revenue Act are not dealt with in the Zamindari  Aboli- tion  Act.  It  cannot be assumed that  while  enacting  the Zamindari  Abolition Act the legislature intended  that  the

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

procedural  provisions contained in Chapter IX of  the  Land Revenue  Act  would be applicable only to  applications  and proceedings  under Chapter X of the Zamindari Abolition  Act but would not be applicable to applications and  proceedings under  provisions  other  than Chapter X  of  the  Zamindari Abolition Act. [575G-576B]     7. It could not be the intention of the legislature that in  the matter of adjudication of applications and  proceed- ings under provisions other than Chapter X of the  Zamindari Abolition  Act  which would be substantially  larger  number than  those under Chapter X of the Act, the provisions  con- tained  in Chapter IX of the Land Revenue Act should not  be available to the revenue courts. [576C-D]     Sahdeo and another v. Deputy Director of  Consolidation, Varanasi  at Allahabad and Others, [1980] Allahabad  Journal 1110, overruled.     G.P. Singh on Principles of Statutory Interpretation 4th Edn., P. 51, referred.

JUDGMENT: