http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

PETITIONER: U.P.  STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DY.  DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.  .

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/02/2000

BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.Ahamad

JUDGMENT:

     S.  SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

     The  dispute, which pertained to Plot Nos.  1366, 1367 and 1368 (old) situate in Village Maliyana, District Meerut, was  decided by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut, in favour of  the appellant by his judgment and order dated 19.4.1969. An  appeal filed against that decision was dismissed by  the Settlement  Officer  (Consolidation),  Meerut,  by  judgment dated  25.11.1969 and the Revision filed under Section 48 of the  U.P.   Consolidation of Holdings Act against the  above judgment  by respondent Dewa Ram, who is now represented  by respondents  2  to 5, was dismissed on the ground  that  the certified  copy  of  the judgment passed by  the  Settlement Officer  (Consolidation), as required by Rule 111(1) of  the Rules  made under the Act, had not been filed with the  memo of  revision.  But the High Court, in a writ petition  which was  thereafter  filed by Dewa Ram, set aside  the  judgment passed  by the Deputy Director (Consolidation), on 1.11.1973 and remanded the case to the Deputy Director (Consolidation) for  a  fresh decision on merits.  After remand, the  Deputy Director  (Consolidation),  by   judgment  dated  31.3.1975, reversed  the earlier judgments passed by the  Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and held that  Dewa  Ram, in whose favour a lease of the above  plots was  executed  by the Land Management Committee, had  become "Sirdar" of those plots and his name may be recorded as such in the Revenue records.  A writ petition filed thereafter by the  appellant in the Allahabad High Court was dismissed  by the impugned judgment dated 28.7.1989.

     On  the commencement of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation  of  Holdings Act, Dewa  Ram,  predecessor-in- interest  of  respondents 2 to 5, who shall  hereinafter  be referred  to  as  respondent,   filed  objections   claiming "Sirdari"  rights  over the plots referred to above  on  the basis  of a lease executed in his favour on 18.4.1966 by the Chairman,  Land  Management  Committee,  who  was  also  the Pradhan  of the village.  Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mills,  which has  since  been  taken over by the  appellant,  also  filed objections  claiming  Sirdari rights over those  plots  over

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

which  there  existed their storage tank for molasses and  a tank  for  sullage  water.  These  structures,  namely,  the storage  tank  for molasses and the tank for  sullage  water were  said  to exist since the time of Messrs  Indira  Sugar Works  which was established in the year 1932-33 by one Seth Inder  Sain  who,  after  taking   permission  of  the  then Zamindars, had constructed molasses tank and also a tank for storage  of  sullage  water and dumping of  waste  material, while  a  portion  of the aforesaid plots was used  as  land appurtenant  to staff quarters of the Sugar Mill.  The plots were  surrounded on all sides by the other land of the Sugar Mill.   Seth  Inder  Sain  transferred the  Mill  to  Messrs Jaswant  Sugar Mill and thereafter, as pointed out above, it was  taken  over  by the appellant which is a  Govt.   owned Corporation  and  the  plots  in   question  are  in   their possession  since then.  On the basis of these facts, it was pleaded  before  the  Consolidation Officer that  since  the plots  were  being used for storage of molasses and  sullage water  and also as appurtenant land for better enjoyment  of the  other  property of the Mill, they never vested  in  the State on the abolition of "Zamindari" by the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

     The  objections  of  the  Mill  were  allowed  by  the Consolidation  Officer  as  also by the  Settlement  Officer (Consolidation),  but  were rejected by the Deputy  Director (Consolidation) and the High Court.

     Mrs.    Shobha   Dikshit,   learned  Senior   Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the lease executed in favour of respondent by the Chairman, Land Management Committee, on the basis of which "Sirdari" rights were  claimed by him, was wholly fictitious as it was  found as  a  fact  by  the Consolidation  Officer  and  Settlement Officer  (Consolidation)  that  the  Chairman  of  the  Land Management  Committee was a close relation of the respondent who  was  also not an agricultural labourer nor had  he  any source  of  cultivation.  It was also found that  respondent was  not  in  possession  over any portion of  the  land  in dispute.   These  plots  were  found  by  the  Consolidation Officer,  on a local inspection, to contain the storage tank for  molasses.   It  was  also found  that  the  plots  were appurtenant to the building of Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mill and its  residential colony (staff colony) and that the Mill was in  possession throughout.  Consequently, the Mill was  held entitled  to the benefit of Section 7 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition  &  Land  Reforms  Act.   These  findings,  it  is contended,  which remained undisturbed, were sufficient  for the   claim  of  the  respondent   being  rejected  by   the Consolidation   Officer   and     the   Settlement   Officer (Consolidation)  and the Deputy Director (Consolidation) and the  High  Court  were wholly in error in  interfering  with those  decisions.  It is also contended that the decision of the High Court that the validity of the lease-deed could not be  legally  examined by the Consolidation Authorities,  was wholly erroneous.

     Learned  counsel  for  the   respondent  has,  on  the contrary, contended that it having been found as a fact that the  Chairman,  Land  Management Committee, had  executed  a lease  of the plots in question in favour of the  respondent under  Section  198 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition &  Land Reforms  Act,  it  was  not within  the  competence  of  the Consolidation  Authorities to have looked into the  validity of that lease and they ought to have proceeded to record the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

name of the respondent in the Revenue records as "Sirdar" on the basis of that lease-deed.

     The   Consolidation  Officer  had   disposed  of   the objections  filed by the respondent as also by the appellant with the following findings :

     "The  lease  deed in question in favour  of  plaintiff Dewa Ram is proved by collusive and illegal on more than one ground  first  the allegation of the other party  that  said leases  Dewa Ram is close relation of Pradhan Het Ram stands proved  by  the  Statement of Dewa Ram and Pradhan  Het  Ram themsleves  as both have given evasive answers on the  facts of  their relationship such as Dewa Ram even could not  tell the  name  of  his grand father and brother of  his  father. Similarly  Pradhan  has  even tried to conceal the  name  of father  of  Dewa  Ram.  Further the interest  shown  by  the Pradhan  Shri  Het Ram in support of the claim of  Dewa  Ram itself   raises  strong  presumption  in  favour   of   this allegation  of alleged close relationship.  Further Dewa Ram admittedly  has got as source of cultivation.  Not only this he  is not even agricultural labourer.  Further the Patta is dated  16.4.1966 and the receipt of deposit of ten times  is dated  2.7.67.   This is also strong proof of the fact  that the  transaction has been done afterwards simply to legalise the  patta.  This also shows clear collusion of the  Pradhan with  said Dewa Ram.  Thirdly the original Gram Samaj agenda book  summoned in the court shows that name of the plots  in dispute  are in different ink.  Lastly, the lessee Dewa  Ram is  not  at all prove to be in possession over the  land  in dispute.   What  is very important in this case is  that  as revealed by my spot inspection also plot No.  1366, 1367 and 1368  were  found to be in was partly for storing Sheera  by Jaswant  Sugar  Mills and partly for throwing sullage  water and  spent  wash of the adjacent factory for  which  several drains  exists on spot as shown in the spot memo also.   Not only  this  in  plot No.  1366 a pucca well built  tank  for storing sheera exist which seems to be quite old.  The plots thus  can  hardly  be said to be vacant land and  cannot  be utilised  for  agricultural purpose and lessee Deva Ram  can hardly  be expected to carry on cultivation over this  land. In  fact  the land has got special commercial value and  the Pradhan  in  collusion  with  Dewa  Ram  has  executed  this leasedeed  simply to gain this property.  This as  discussed above  the lease deed in favour of Dewa Ram is not  entitled to  get  his  name  mutated on the basis of  lease  deed  in question."

     Further findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer are as follows :

     "But  Jaswant  Sugar  Mills  was   entered  to  be  in possession  since before Zamindari abolition.  Thus no doubt the  land of disputed plot Nos.  1366, 1367, 1368 are proved to  be  area appurtenant to the building of  Jaswasnt  Sugar Mills  and  its residential colony and is in possession  and was  of  the  Mill for the purposes of  storing  of  sheera, sullage  water, refuse etc.  as mentioned above.  But  since not  cultivatory possession of the Mill is proved over  land in  dispute  no sirdari rights accrues to the Mill over  the land in dispute.  The objectors Jaswant Sugar Mills thus can

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

at  best claim rights u/s 9 of the U.P.Z.A.  and  Protection of  Sec.  7(1) of the said Act which protects the rights  of Bhumidharis  and Sirdaris is continue to enjoy the  easement or  any similar rights for the more beneficial enjoyment  of the  land  as  he  was enjoying  on  the  dates  immediately preceding the date of vesting."

     These findings were affirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)  by  his  judgment  dated  25.11.1969.   The Settlement  Officer  (Consolidation) recorded the  following findings:

     "I  find that the lease executed in his favour was not legal and according to rules.  As is clear from the evidence on record and as has also been held by the learned C.O.  the

     Chairman of the L.M.C.  was his relation and the lease executed  in  his  favour  was collusive one,  there  is  no evidence  on  record  to establish that the appellant  is  a landless  person and the claim of other landless persons  of the  village  were  considered by the  village  Pradhan  and L.M.C.   Besides  the alleged lease deed is dated  16.4.1966 while  the receipt for payment of ten times rent produced by the  appellant  is  dated  2.7.67.  This  appears  to  be  a manipulation  and  also collusion with the village  Pradhan. The  appellant  has  also  not been able  to  establish  his possession  over  these plots and there is  no  satisfactory evidence  to  prove the same.  The learned C.O.  has made  a spot  inspection and his inspection memo dated 8.12.1968  is on  file.   He  too  had not found the appellant  to  be  in cultivatory  possession of these plots which were in was  by others  for  other  than agricultural  purposes.   Thus  the appellant  Deva  Ram could not be mutated as Sirdar  of  the disputed  land on the basis of illegal, and collusive  lease executed  in  his  favour  and his claim  has  been  rightly rejected  by the C.O.  his appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed."

     These  findings have not been disturbed by the  Deputy Director  (Consolidation)  who  decided   the  Revision   on 31.3.1975 with the finding that the lease executed in favour of  the respondent under Section 198 of the U.P.   Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was valid, inasmuch as a notice issued  under  Section  198(2)  of  that  Act  by  the  Sub- Divisional  Officer  was  subsequently   withdrawn  and  the proceedings for cancellation of lease initiated on the basis of  that  notice  were also withdrawn.  He also  recorded  a finding that the possession over the land in dispute was all along with the respondent.  For this purpose, he relied upon an  interim  order passed by the High Court in  the  earlier writ  petition  to  the effect that the  possession  of  the respondent would not be disturbed.

     The  reasoning of the Deputy Director  (Consolidation) on both the questions is, to say the least, ridiculous.  The mere  fact  that a notice under Section 198(2) of  the  U.P. Zamindari  Abolition  &  Land  Reforms Act  was  issued  for cancellation  of  the  lease-deed   executed  in  favour  of respondent  and  the proceedings initiated on the  basis  of that notice were subsequently withdrawn, would not mean that the lease was valid specially when the Consolidation Officer and  the  Settlement Officer (Consolidation) both  had  held that  the  land which contained a storage tank for  molasses and another for sullage water and other purposes, was in the possession  of the Sugar Mill.  Proceedings initiated  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

Section  198(2)  of  the U.P.  Zamindari  Abolition  &  Land Reforms  Act for cancellation of the lease in favour of  the respondent  were initiated and withdrawn without there being any  notice  ever  issued  to the Sugar  Mill.   The  Deputy Director (Consolidation) did not advert himself to the vital facts that the land contained the storage tanks for molasses and  sullage  water  and other purposes connected  with  the sugar  industry nor did he consider that the plots were  the land  appurtenant  to the staff quarters of the  Mill.   The benefit of Section 7 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, which was extended by the Consolidation Officer was   also   not  adverted  to   by  the   Deputy   Director (Consolidation).   The finding on the question of possession was  recorded  by  the  Deputy Director  in  favour  of  the respondent  because of the interim order passed by the  High Court  in the first writ petition in which the only question raised  by the respondent was that his Revision filed before the  Deputy  Director  (Consolidation) could not  have  been dismissed  merely  on the ground that the certified copy  of the    judgment   passed   by    the   Settlement    Officer (Consolidation)  was not annexed with the memo of  Revision. It was on this question that the High Court had remanded the matter   to   the  Deputy   Director   (Consolidation)   for consideration of the Revision on merits.  Thus, the question of possession was not in issue before the High Court and the High  Court  was  not required to record a  finding  whether respondent or the appellant was in possession over the plots in  question.  In the circumstances, the reliance placed  by the  Deputy Director on the interim order passed by the High Court  in  that  petition  for   recording  a  finding  that respondent  was  in possession over those plots, was  wholly out of place.

     The High Court before which the judgment of the Deputy Director  was  assailed,  went  a step further  and  on  and incorrect  interpretation of Section 209 and 210 of the U.P. Zamindari  Abolition & Land Reforms Act held that the  Sugar Mill  would  not  get "Sirdari" rights over the  Gaon  Sabha property.  Now, in the particular circumstances of the case, neither Section 209 nor did Section 210 apply.

     Section  209,  as  it stood at the relevant  time,  is reproduced below.

     "S.209-  Ejectment  of persons occupying land  without title-

     (1)  A  person taking or retaining possession of  land otherwise  than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, and-

     (a)  Where  the  land forms part of the holding  of  a bhumidhar,  sirdar  or  asami without the  consent  of  such bhumidhar, sirdar or asami,

     (b)  where the land does not form part of the  holding of  a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami without the consent of  the Gaon Sabha

     shall  be  liable to ejectment on the suit,  in  cases referred to in clause (a) above, of the bhumidhar, sirdar or asami  concerned;   and in cases referred to in  clause  (b) above  of  the  Gaon Samaj and shall also be liable  to  pay damages.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

     (2)  To  every suit relating to a land referred to  in clause  (a) of subsection (1) the State Government shall  be impleaded as a necessary party."

     Section 210 as amended by the U.P.  Civil Laws Reforms and  Amendment Act, 1976 (Act No.  LVII of 1976), is  quoted below:

     "210.   Consequences  of  failure to file  suit  under Section  209.-  If a suit for eviction from any  land  under section  209 is not instituted by a bhumidhar or asami, or a decree  for  eviction  obtained  in any  such  suit  is  not executed  within  the  period  of  limitation  provided  for institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as the  case may be, the person taking or retaining  possession shall -

     (a)  where  the  land forms part of the holding  of  a bhumidhar  with transferable rights, become a bhumidhar with transferable  rights  of such land and the right, title  and interest  of  an  asami,  if  any, in  such  land  shall  be extinguished;   (b) where the land forms part of the holding of  a  bhumidhar  with non- transferable  rights,  become  a bhumidhar with non- transferable rights and the right, title and  interest  of  an asami, if any, in such land  shall  be extinguished;

     (c)  where  the land forms part of the holding  of  an asami  on  behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an asami of  the holding from year to year.

     Provided  that  the consequences mentioned in  clauses (a)  to (c) shall not ensue in respect of any land held by a bhumidhar or asami belonging to a Scheduled Tribe." .lm10

     The reasoning of the High Court appears to be that the land,  on the commencement of the consolidation  operations, was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha and therefore, it was the property of the Gaon Sabha.  Even if the Mill was in possession  over  the land of the Gaon Sabha for  more  than twelve  years,  it would not get "Sirdari" rights.   Section 209,  which has been extracted above, provides that a person taking  or retaining possession over any land in  accordance with  the provisions of the law for the time being in  force shall  be liable to be evicted from that land on the suit of a  bhumidhar,  sirdar or asami, as the case may be,  if  the land  pertains  to such bhumidhar, sirdar or asami  and  the possession was taken or retained without the consent of such bhumidhar,  sirdar or asami.  If the land pertained to  Gaon Sabha,  then the person taking or retaining possession  over the land would be liable to be evicted therefrom on the suit of the Gaon Sabha.

     Consequences  of  not filing a suit under Section  209 have been indicated in Section 210.  Clause (iii) of Section 210  as  it  originally stood (prior to amendment  in  1976) provided that if the suit was not filed within the period of limitation, then such person would become Sirdar of the land in  question as if he had been admitted to the possession of that  land  by the Gaon Sabha.  Since this clause  does  not form part of Section 210 as introduced by Amendment in 1976, the  High  Court  was  of the opinion that the  Mill,  as  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

consequence  of  the  Gaon Sabha not filing a suit  for  the eviction  of the Mill within the period of limitation, would not  become  Sirdar of the land in question and,  therefore, its  objections  filed before the Consolidation Officer  for Sirdari rights were liable to be rejected.

     Section  209  and 210 both pre-suppose that  the  land over  which  possession  was taken or retained  by  a  third person belonged to a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami or, for that matter,  to the Gaon Sabha and it is at the instance of such bhumidhar,  sirdar  or  asami or the Gaon  Sabha  that  such person  who  has taken or retained possession  belonging  to them would be evicted therefrom.

     Before  coming to that question, it would be better to consider  the  background  in   which  the  U.P.   Zamindari Abolition  and Land Reforms Act was enacted which will  also reveal   the  purpose  for  which  it  was  made   and   the significance  of  "Gaon  Sabha" as a governing unit  in  the rural  areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh.  The history  is given  in the Eastern Book Company Publication of Mr.   S.M. Husain’s  Commentary  on the U.P.  Zamindari  Abolition  and Land Reforms Act, a part of which is reproduced below:-

     "The  State  of Uttar Pradesh was previously known  as the  United  Provinces  of Agra and Oudh i.e.   a  composite province consisting of the province of Agra and the province of  Oudh.  Although since the introduction of the U.P.  Land Revenue  Act  they had a uniform system of revenue law,  but the  law  of  Tenancy  till the  introduction  of  the  U.P. Tenancy Act XVII of 1939 was absolutely different.

     The  province  of  Agra was previously  known  as  the North-Western  Province,  being a part of the Presidency  of Fort  William,  and was governed by the Bengal  Regulations. The  Regulations  specially applicable to the  North-Western Province  were subsequently published under the authority of the  Government  of  India  in  the  form  of  North-Western Province  Code.  These Regulations were primarily meant  for the collection of revenue and had nothing for the benefit of the tenants.  It was in the year 1859 that the Rent Recovery Act  X  of 1859 was introduced, which, in a way,  recognised the  rights  of subordinate tenure-holders.  Thereafter  the Agra  Tenancy Act of 1901, to a certain extent, defined  the rights  of the tenants;  but it still left the door open  to arbitrary  ejectment and afforded no adequate protection  to the tenants from enhancement of rent and wasteful litigation by  unscruplous  landlords.  It was generally felt that  the law required drastic changes, but due to the intervention of the war nothing could be done till the year 1926.

     The  Province of Avadh, previous to its annexation  by the  East India Company, was governed by the Kings of Avadh. They  had  different  systems  of  collecting  revenue,  and collected it through mustajiri, or by appointment of Nazims, Chakladars  or  other collecting officials.   The  immediate holders  of the soil had no substantive rights, and were  at the  mercy of these rent collectors.  In anticipation of the annexation  of  the  province Lord Dalhousie  the  Governor- General  of  India wrote to General Outram, the Resident  of Avadh,  to  do away with the landholders or Taluqdars  as  a class  and make a summary settlement direct with the persons in  possession  of  the  soil.  Avadh was  annexed  on  13th February  1856  and before the summary settlement  could  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

completed mutiny broke out in Lucknow on 30th May, 1857, and the  authority  of the British Government having come  to  a standstill,   the  entire  records  so  far  prepared   were destroyed.  After the furies of the mutiny were over and the British Government was able to re-control the province, Lord Canning,   issued  a  proclamation  on  15th  march,   1859, confiscating  all  proprietary  rights in the  soil  of  the province.  The Second Summary Settlement was thereafter made on the principle of the restoration of the status quo at the time  of  the  annexation.   This secured  the  position  of Taluqdars  and  landlords, but gave no relief to the  under- proprietors or to other subordinate tenure-holders.

     In  the year 1864 Sir John Lawrence became the Viceroy of  India.   With his intimate knowledge of the  working  of rent  law  in the Punjab and the North-Western Province,  he was  keen  to recognise the rights of under-proprietors  and hereditary tenants in Avadh.  He succeeded in protecting the rights  of the under-proprietors by the Oudh  Sub-settlement Act,  1886, which paved a way for further recognition of the rights  of  subordinate  tenure  holders  and  tenants,  and culminated in the passing of the first Rent Act for Avadh in 1868 (Act XIX of 1868).  This Act was soon after repealed in part  by Act VII of 1870, and on minor points was amended by Acts  XXXII  of 1871, XVIII of 1876, XIV of 1878 and XIV  of 1882.   It  was in the year 1886, that Act XXII of 1886  was passed,  which  brought some substantial relief to  tenants. The  changes brought about by this Act were:  (1)  statutory rights  of  tenants, (2) limit of enhancement of  rent,  (3) restrictions  on  ejectment  and (4) the tenant’s  right  of improvement.  There were minor amendments by Acts XX of 1890 and  XII  of 1891 but they did not change the  principle  on which  the original Act was framed.  The Amending Act IV  of 1901  opened  two new chapters in the rent law, viz (1)  ex- proprietary tenancy, and (2) resumption of rent-free grants. This  ex-proprietary  right was apart  from  ex-proprietor’s right  of occupancy recognised by section 5 of the Oudh Rent Act, 1886, and section 25 of the Oudh Laws Act.

     These  Acts and amendments, though beneficial in their effect,  failed to meet the changed economic conditions that grew  up with the increase in population, the development of agriculture,  and  the  rise in value  of  the  agricultural produce.   There  was  growing distress and  discontent  all round  and the pent up feelings ultimately found  expression in  the  shape of Kisan Sabha movement.  There were  serious riots  in  the whole of the province, made more ugly by  the retaliatory measures adopted by the landlords.  The rioters’ slogan  was:  "no nazrana, no ejctment," while the landlords in  turn  adopted every means to turn out the  tenants  from their  holdings, and extend their sir and khudkasht as  much as possible.  These riots though put down with a heavy hand, in  any case, brought home to the Government, the  necessity of  sympathetic  amendments  in  the   rent  law.   It  was, therefore,  "to  improve  relations  between  landlords  and tenants  in  Oudh and specially to give the  latter  greater security  of  tenure  at a fair rental" that the  Oudh  Rent (Amendment) Act IV of 1921 was enacted.

     This  Act  had repercussions in the province of  Agra. There  the  Kisan movement gained momentum in the  shape  of Eka,  and  in  the words of Sir William  Marris,  drove  the Government   to   two  conclusions:    "(1)  that   it   was inequitable,  and  in the long run impossible to  leave  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

unprotected  tenants  of the Agra province in a less  secure position  than  the new statutory tenants in Oudh,  and  (2) that  it was our duty to take the matter up and deal with it at  a time, when the province was happily at peace, so as to remove  in good time such grounds of agrarian discontent  as might  afford fuel for grave mischief, if such another  wave of  ferment  and  excitement  as occurred in  1922  were  to impinge  again  on the province." This consciousness of  the Government resulted in the enactment of the Agra Tenancy Act III of 1926.

     It  should not be lost sight of, that at the time that these  two Acts, viz.  the Oudh Rent (Amendment) Act and the Agra  Tenancy Act, were enacted, the Provincial  Legislature was  dominated  by landed interest, and these Acts were  the result  of  a  compromise  between  the  landlords  and  the Government, as representing the interests of the tenants and other subordinate tenure-holders.  While securing protection for  the  tenants,  the  Government  had  to  yield  certain concessions  to  the  landlords.   These  were  abused,  and resulted in the "no rent" and "no revenue" campaign of 1930- 31,  which  had  its genesis in the high  rents,  which  had become  oppressive  due to the sudden fall in the prices  of agricultural  produce.  To meet the situation the Government enacted the U.P.  Emergency Powers Ordinance XII of 1930 and the  U.P.  Special Powers Act XIV of 1932.  The tenants were protected  from  ejectment on account of arrears of rent  by U.P.   Arrears of Rent Act I of 1932, and were given  relief by  U.P.   Assistance of Tenants Act VIII of 1932  providing remissions  in  arrears  for 1337 and 1338 Faslis up  to  25 P.C., and allowing payment of decreed amount by instalments; by  the  Amending  Act  IX of 1934 in  addition  to  several executive measures, such as, Flat Rate Remission Scheme etc. In September, 1939, the Great War began.  It was a fight for democracy  and  ended in its complete victory.  Its  effects could  not but be felt throughout the world.  A feeling  had grown  and  developed  by the year 1946, when  the  Congress returned  to  power, that the feudal order or  the  existing landlord-tenant  system was inconsistent with the democratic set-up  of India, and the tillers of soil should be  allowed to  reap the full fruits of their labour.  On 8th of August, 1946, the following resolution was, therefore, passed by the Legislative Assembly :

     "This  Assembly accepts the principle of the abolition of  the  Zamindari  system in this province  which  involves intermediaries  between  the  cultivator and the  State  and resolves  that  the rights of such intermediaries should  be acquired  on  payment  of equitable  compensation  and  that Government  should  appoint a Committee to prepare a  scheme for this purpose."

     A Committee known as the Zamindari Abolition Committee was  appointed  to  report and make recommendations  on  the following matters :

     (1)  Accepting  the principle of the abolition of  the Zamindari system-

     (a) What rights should be acquired?

     (b)  What would be the principle for the determination of  equitable  compensation  for  the  acquisition  of  such rights?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

     (c)  What  administrative and  financial  arrangements would be required to give effect to the proposals formulated under (a) and (b)?

     (2)  What  would be the basic principles  and  precise scheme of land tenure which will replace the existing system of Zamindari in the Province?

     (3)  What  would  be the  administrative  organisation required to give effect to new scheme of land tenure and, in particular,  what  would  be the  machinery  for  collecting Government dues?

     The  Committee  submitted its report in August,  1948, which  after careful consideration was crystallised into the U.P.   Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Bill, 1949.  The Hon’ble   Chief  Minister  while   releasing  the  Bill  for publication made the following observation:

     "We have given many long hours to the consideration of the  intricate and complex problems which form the  subject- matter  of  this  Bill.  It is the result  of  close  study, dispassionate  consideration and sober discussion and I hope it  will be examined in the same spirit.  We have not in any way  been  influenced by any extraneous  consideration.   In fact,  we  have never been hostile to Zamindars or  for  the matter  of  that to any other section of the community.   We wish  to do all that we can for the welfare of every one but all  of us have to realise that the good of each  individual lies  in  the  good  of  all and in this  new  order  it  is necessary  that  even  for the  preservation  of  individual interest  those of the larger whole should not be  neglected or under-rated.

     "With  the  implementation of this measure,  we  hope, many  of  our  dreams  would  be  realised.   Next  to   the achievement  of  independence for our country, I think,  the implementation  of  this comprehensive measure,  which  will bring  real  Swaraj to about 50 millions of people  in  this Province,  will  always be regarded as an  outstanding  step towards the achievement of the destiny of our people."

     The  Bill was introduced in the Assembly on 7th  July, 1949, and after a discussion lasting for several days it was referred  to  a Joint Select Committee.  This Committee  was able  to  make important changes in the Bill, and  submitted its  report, which was published in the U.P.  Gazette  dated 29th  December,  1949, and presented to the Assembly on  9th January, 1950.

     The  Assembly took up the consideration of the Bill on 16th  January, 1950, when its first reading took place,  and was ultimately passed on 4th August, 1950.  It was presented to  the  Legislative Council on 6th September,  1950,  which passed  it on 30th November, 1950, with certain  amendments. The  Bill  as  passed  by the Council was  returned  to  the Assembly,  which  accepted the amendments on 26th  December, 1950.   It  was again returned to the  Legislative  Council, which accepted it on 16th January, 1951.  His Excellency the Governor  reserved  it for the assent of the President,  who gave  his  assent  on  24th  January,  1951,  and  the  U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms Act, became the law of the land from 26th January, 1951."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

     The  Act  was enforced with effect from July  1,  1952 when a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in  the U.P.  Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) of the even date.  It has  also been stated in the introductory part of the  above commentary as under:-

     "The  Act has really created a peasant proprietorship, and  by  the creation of Gaon Samaj and Gaon Sabha, to  whom all  common lands, forests, trees, public wells,  fisheries, hats, bazars, melas, tanks, ponds, private ferries, pathways and  abadi  sites  would vest, an attempt has been  made  to develop    self-governing    village    communities.     The establishment  of co-operative farming is also with the same object,  as  also  for  creating a  sense  of  community  of interest."

     At another place, it is stated as under:-

     "The  Act  has, in effect, abolished the feudal  order and  landlord-tenant system and has replaced it by a  system pregnant  for the development of a sense of democracy and  a community  of  interest.  It has recognised the  truth  that those  who  till  the soil, must reap the  fruits  of  their labour." Section 4 which provides for the vesting of estates in the State provides as under:-

     "4.   Vesting of estates in the State.-(1) As soon  as may  be  after  the  commencement of  this  Act,  the  State Government  may,  by notification, declare that, as  from  a date  to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar  Pradesh shall  vest  in the State and as from the beginning  of  the date  so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except as  hereinafter  provided,  in  the   State  free  from  all encumbrances.

     (2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so  considers  necessary, to issue, from time to  time,  the notification  referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect only of  such  area  or  areas as may be specified  and  all  the provisions  of Sub-section (1) shall be applicable to and in the case of every such notification."

     Section  6  provides  for  the  consequences  of  such vesting.  It is provided that all rights, title and interest of  all the intermediaries shall cease and be vested in  the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances.

     Section  7  which is relevant for the purpose of  this case and which saves certain rights provides, inter alia, as under:-

     "7.   Saving  in respect of certain  rights.-  Nothing contained  in this chapter shall in any way affect the right of any person-

     (a) ........................................

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

     (aa)  being a bhumidhar, sirdar, adhivasi or asami  of any  land, to continue to enjoy any easement or any  similar right  for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land, as  he was  enjoying on the date immediately preceding the date  of vesting;

     (b)           ........................................

     ........................................"

     Section 9 provides as under:-

     "9.  Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings to be settled  with the existing owners or occupiers thereof.- All wells,  trees in abadi, and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate, belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person whether residing in the village or not,  shall  continue  to  belong  to or  be  held  by  such intermediary,  tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site  of  the  wells  or   the  buildings  within  the  area appurtenant  thereto shall be deemed to be settled with  him by  the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed."

     Section  7  and  9 thus save  certain  rights.   While Section  7,  inter alia, saves right of easement for  better and  for  more  beneficial  enjoyment of  the  land  in  the possession of the tenure-holder, Section 9 provides that the wells,  trees in abadi and buildings belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person, shall continue to belong  to  that person and the site thereof  including  the area  appurtenant  thereto  would  be deemed  to  have  been settled  with  him  by  the State Government.   It  is  thus obvious that wells, trees in abadi and buildings or the site of the building which are fictionally settled with the owner thereof  including  the land appurtenant thereto  would  not vest  in  the  State as a consequence  of  the  Notification issued  under Section 4 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land  Reforms  Act.  The right of easement  available  under Section  7 would also 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 right, title and interest in the State.

     Chapter  VII of the Act deals with Gaon Samaj and Gaon Sabha.   Originally, Section 113 provided that a Gaon  Samaj would be established for each village.  Section 114 provided that  a  Gaon  Samaj  would include  all  adults  ordinarily residing  in the circle for which it is established.   Under Section  115, the Government could alter the limits of  Gaon Samaj.   Section  116 provided for the incidental orders  on account  of  changes  in the jurisdiction of a  Gaon  Samaj. Section  117 dealt with the vesting of certain land etc.  in the  Gaon Samaj.  Section 113 to 116 have since been deleted by  U.P.   Act No.  XXXIII of 1961 and Chapter VII has  been headed  as "Gaon Sabha." Section 117 which provides for  the vesting  of  certain land etc.  in the Gaon Sabha  has  been retained.  The relevant portion of this Section, as it stood at the relevant time, is quoted below:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

     "117.   Vesting  of  certain   lands,  etc.   in  Gaon Sabha.-(1)  At  any  time  after   the  publication  of  the notification  mentioned  in Section 4, the State  Government may  by notification in the Gazette declare that as from the date to be specified (hereinafter in this chapter called the specified date)-

     (i)  all land whether cultivable or otherwise,  except land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove,

     (ii) all forests within the village boundaries,

     (iii)  all trees (other than trees in a holding or  on the boundary thereof or in a grove or abadi)

     (iv) fisheries

     (v)  hats,  bazars and melas, except hats, bazars  and melas  held on land to which provisions of Clause (a) to (c) of  Sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply or on land  referred to in Section 9, and

     (vi)  tanks,  ponds, private ferries, water  channels, path-ways and abadi sites,

     situate  in  a Circle, which had vested in  the  State under this Act, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha established for the Circle :

     Provided  that,  it  shall  be lawful  for  the  State Government  to  make  the declaration  aforesaid  either  in respect of all or any of the things mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vi) and in so doing, make such exceptions or impose such conditions as it may specify in the notificatiion.

     (2) ..........................................

     (3)  Where anything of the nature specified in Clauses (i)  to (vi) of Sub-section (1) has been vested in any  Gaon Sabha  under  Sub-section (2), such Gaon Sabha or  its  Land Management  Committee  shall in respect of the part  of  the village  perform,  discharge, or exercise functions,  duties and  powers assigned, imposed or conferred by or under  this Act  on a Gaon Sabha, or a Land Management Committee, as the case  may be, in relation to such thing and the holding area within the part of the village.

     (4) ..................................."

     Section  126  provides that the State  Government  may issue  such  orders  and directions to the  Land  Management Committee as may appear to be necessary for purposes of this Act  and  it  shall  be  the duty  of  the  Land  Management Committee to forthwith carry out such orders and comply with such  directions.   Comprehensive provisions have also  been made  in  respect  of  Gaon Sabha under  the  Uttar  Pradesh Panchayat  Raj Act, 1947 of which only a few provisions  are referred  to  as they alone are relevant for the purpose  of the present case.

     Section 3 of the U.P.  Panchayat Raj Act provides that the  State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,  establish  a Gram Sabha for a village or group  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

villages.

     A  Gram  Panchayat is constituted under Section 12  of the Act for every Panchayat area.

     Bhumi  Prabandhak  Samiti  or   the  Land   Management Committee  is  provided  for by Section 28-A  of  the  Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 which is quoted below:-

     "28-A.    Bhumi   Prabandhak   Samiti.-(1)  The   Gram Panchayat  shall also be the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and  as such   discharge  the  duties  of  upkeep,  protection   and supervision  of  all property belonging to or vested  in  or held  by  the Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the  Uttar Pradesh  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,  or under any other provision of that Act.

     (2)  The Pradhan and Up-Pradhan shall respectively  be the  Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Bhumi  Prabandhak Samiti,  and  the  Lekhpal  of the  area  comprised  in  the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat shall be its Secretary."

     The   duty  to  upkeep,   protect  and  supervise  all properties  belonging  to or vested in or held by  the  Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and  Land  Reforms Act or under any other provision of  that Act  is  that  of  the Land Management  Committee  or  Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti.

     Under   Section  28-B,  the   functions  of  the  Land Management  Committee  have  been indicated.   The  relevant functions  for  purpose of this case is contained in  Clause (a)  of Section 28-B which provides that the Land Management Committee  shall  for  and on behalf of  Gram  Panchayat  be charged  with  the  general   management,  preservation  and control  of  all  properties  referred to  in  Section  28-A including  the  settling and management of the land but  not including  the  transfer of any property for the time  being vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the U.  P. Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or under any other provision of that Act.

     A  perusal  of relevant portion of Section 117 of  the U.P.   Zamindari  Abolition  and Land  Reforms  Act  (quoted above)  would indicate that only such land etc.  would  vest in   the  Gaon  Sabha  as   are  mentioned  in  the  Gazette Notification issued under Section 117 of the Act.  The words ".....which  had vested in the State", used in this Section, indicate  that  the property which had originally vested  in the  State  on  account  of the  Notification  issued  under Section  4  could  be  vested  in   the  Gaon  Sabha  by   a Notification  issued under Section 117.  The analysis, thus, clearly  indicates  that before a property is vested in  the Gaon  Sabha,  it  should  have first  vested  in  the  State Government  under Section 6 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

     Power  to  admit any person as bhumidhar by  the  Land Management Committee is contained in Section 195 of the U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms Act which, as it stood at the relevant time, provides as under:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

     "195.   Admission  to  land.-   The  Land   Management Committee shall have the right to admit any person as sirdar to  any land (other than land falling in any of the  classes mentioned in Section 132) where-

     (a) the land is vacant land,

     (b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117, or

     (c)  the  land  has come into the possession  of  Land Management  Commitee  under Section 194 or under  any  other provision of this Act."

     Admittedly,  Clause  (c),  indicated   above,  is  not applicable to the facts of this case.

     Now,  Section 197 enables a Land Management  Committee to  admit any person as asami of any land falling in any  of the  classes mentioned in Section 132.  This Section is also not  applicable  to  the facts of this case as the  land  of which a lease was executed by the Land Management Committee, in favour of the respondent, was not the land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132.

     Section  198  sets  out  the order  of  preference  in admitting persons to land as bhumidhar under Section 195 and as asami under Section 197.  The order of preference set out in  Section  198 has to be followed by the  Land  Management Committee in making allotments of the land.

     The  procedure  which has to be followed by  the  Land Management  Committee in admitting any person to land  under Section  195 and 197 is set out in the Rules made under  the Act.    The  relevant  Rules  are   Rules  173   to   178-A. Sub-section  (4) of Section 198 authorises the Collector  to cancel  the allotment of lease of any land made by the  Land Management  Committee  suo motu on his own motion or on  the application  of  any person aggrieved by that  allotment  or lease.

     In  the  instant case, it was found as a fact  by  the Consolidation  Officer  as  also by the  Settlement  Officer (Consolidation)  that  part of the land in question was  the land  appurtenant  to  the staff quarter of the  Sugar  Mill while  the  other  part was utilised for storage  tanks  for molasses  and for sullage water and other purposes connected with  the  functioning  of  the Mill.   Since  the  land  in question was being utilised as land appurtenant to the Staff Quarter  of  the Mill from before the date of vesting,  that land  would not vest in the State on account of Notification issued  under  Section  4 of the Act.   The  easement  right available  to  the  Sugar Mill in respect of  the  plots  in question  would also not stand destroyed and would  continue to be enjoyed by the Mill.

     The    findings   recorded     concurrently   by   the Consolidation  Officer  as  also   the  Settlement   Officer (Consolidation)  regarding  the land in question  being  the land  appurtenant  to the Staff Quarter of the Mill  or  the land  being  utilised  for storage of molasses  and  sullage water  etc.  have not been set aside by the Deputy  Director of  Consolidation  nor  has  the High Court  held  that  the findings were erroneous.  That being so, the property, at no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

stage,  vested in the State and, therefore, it could not, at any  subsequent  stage,  vest in the Gaon Sabha.   The  Gaon Sabha,  therefore,  could not legally execute any  lease  in respect of these plots in favour of the respondent.

     The  High Court, without considering these  questions, held  that  the validity of the lease, executed by the  Gaon Sabha  in  favour  of the respondent, could not  be  legally examined  by  the Consolidation Authorities under  the  U.P. Consolidation  of  Holdings  Act, 1953.  Relinace  for  this purpose  was  placed  by the High Court on  the  Full  Bench decision  of the Allahabad High Court in Similesh Kumar  vs. Gaon  Sabha,  Uskar,  Ghazipur   and  ohters,  1977  Revenue Decision 409 = AIR 1977 Allahabad 360 and Bhurey and another vs.  Board of Revenue, U.P.  and ors., 1984 Revenue Decision 294, in which the Allahabad High Court while considering the effect  of  amendment introduced in Section 210 held that  a trespasser  over the Gaon Sabha land cannot acquire  sirdari rights  even  if he was in possession of that land for  more than  12  years.   The High Court also relied  upon  another decision  in Chatar Singh vs.  Sahayak Sanchalak,  Chakbandi and  others,  1979 A.C.J.  335, in which it was  again  held that even if a person was in possession over the property of the  Gaon Sabha for more than 12 years, he would not acquire sirdari  rights  under  Section 210 of the  U.P.   Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

     In  the  Full  Bench decision of  the  Allahabad  High Court, referred to above, it was held that the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to consider the question of cancellation  of  lease  which could be considered  only  by regular  courts.  The decision of this Court in Gorakh  Nath Dube  vs.  Hari Narain Singh and others, (1973) 2 SCC 535  = 1974  (1)  SCR 339 = 1973 Revenue Decision 423, in which  it was held that a void document which was liable to be ignored by  the  court  would  not affect the  jurisdiction  of  the Consolidation  Courts  was  distinguished.    So  also   the decision  of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High  Court in  Jagarnath  Shukla vs.  Sita Ram Pande and  others,  1969 A.L.J.  768, which was affirmed by this Court in Gorakh Nath Dube’s  case  (supra)  was   also  distinguished.   We  have carefully  considered  these decisions and, in our  opinion, the  Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court was in error  in distinguishing  the  decision of this Court in  Gorakh  Nath Dube’s  case  (supra) which has since been followed by  this Court  in  Dulari Devi vs.  Janardan Singh 1990  Supp.   SCC 216;   Ashrafi  Lal  vs.   Koili  (1995)  4  SCC  163;   and Muneshwar vs.  Raja Mohammed Khan (1998) 6 SCC 582.

     The  decision of this Court in Gorakh Nath Dube’s case (supra)  was  also followed by the Allahabad High  Court  in Ramanand vs.  D.D.C.  and others, 1987 Revenue Decision 430, and  it  was  held  that a document which is  void  and  is, therefore,  liable  to be ignored by the courts,  would  not affect the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Courts and they would be within their jurisdiction in adjudicating upon that document  so as to finally decide the rights of the parties. The  Full  Bench  decision  of the High  Court  in  Similesh Kumar’s case (supra) was distinguished.

     In  the  instant  case, in view of the  provisions  of Section 7(aa) and Section 9 of the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land in dispute, which was held by the   Consolidation   Officer     and   Settlement   Officer (Consolidation)  to  be  the land appurtenant to  the  Staff

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

Quarter of the Sugar Mill, had not vested in the State under Section  6  of the Act as a consequence of the  Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.  Once these plots did not vest  in the State, it would not vest in the Gaon Sabha  and the  Gaon  Sabha  had, therefore, no jurisdiction  to  grant lease  of those plots to the respondent.  Such a lease was a void  document  from  the inception and,  consequently,  the jurisdiction  of  the  Consolidation   Authorities  was  not affected.  No other point was pressed before us.

     The  appeal  is allowed.  The impugned judgment  dated 28.7.1989,  passed  by the Allahabad High Court as also  the judgment  dated 31.03.1975, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,  are  set  aside  while  the  judgment  dated 19.4.1969,  passed  by  the Consolidation  Officer  and  the judgment  dated 25.11.1969, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)  are upheld and the objections filed by  the respondent  under  Section 9 of the U.P.   Consolidation  of Holdings Act, 1953 on the basis of the lease deed granted in his favour by the Land Management Committee claiming sirdari rights are dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.