Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Karm Pal (Since Deceased) vs Joint Director Of Consolidation ... on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.3939 OF 2021
KARM PAL (SINCE DECEASED) & ORS. …Petitioners
Versus
JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
(ADMINISTRATIVE/JUDICIAL) SULTANPUR & ORS. …Respondents
O R D E R
This petition challenges the order dated 27-02-2019
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in CN No. 507/1995 (Consolidation).
The core issue in the matter is whether the case of the
petitioner would come under Section 14(2)(b) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 19501.
The relevant provisions namely Sections 14 and 18 of the
Act are quoted hereunder:-
“14. Estate in possession of a mortgagee with
possession. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-
section (2), a mortgagee in possession of an estate
or share therein shall, with effect from the date of
vesting, cease to have any right to hold or possess
as such any land in such estate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah (2) Where any such land was in the personal
Date: 2022.05.18
16:03:29 IST
Reason:
cultivation of the mortgagee on the date immediately
proceeding the date of vesting-
1 [‘the Act’ for short]
2
(a) if it was sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor
on the date of the mortgage, the same shall,
for purposes of Section 18 be deemed to be
the sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor or his
legal representative;
(b) if it was not sir or khudkasht of the
mortgagor on the date of the mortgage, the
mortgagee shall, subject to his paying to
the State Government within six months from
the date of vesting an amount equal to five
times the rent calculated at hereditary
rates applicable on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting, be deemed,
for purposes of Section 19 to have held such
land on the date aforesaid as a hereditary
tenant thereof at the said rate of rent:
Provided that if the mortgagee fails to
pay the amount aforesaid within the time
allowed, he shall thereupon lose all rights
in such land which shall be deemed to be
vacant land and he shall be liable to
ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha [or
the Collector] under Section 209 as if he
were a person in possession thereof otherwise
than in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
Explanation [I]. - For the purposes of this section
a mortgagee in possession includes a thekedar of his
rights as mortgagee in the land.
[Explanation II. - Where any land has been mortgaged
with possession and the mortgagor makes a second or
subsequent mortgage of such land in favour of the
same or different person, the expression "on the
date of the mortgage" shall mean the date of the
mortgage in pursuance of which the mortgagor first
transferred possession to mortgagee.]
18. Settlement of certain lands with intermediaries
or cultivators as Bhumidhar. - (1) Subject to the
provisions of Sections 10, 15, 16 and 17, all lands-
(a) in possession of or held or deemed to be held by
an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or an
intermediary's grove;
3
(b) held as a grove by or in the personal ultivation
of a permanent lessee in Avadh;
(c) held by a fixed-rate tenant or rent-free grantee
as such; or
(d) held as such by-
(i) an occupancy tenant; |
possessing the right to
(ii)a hereditary tenant;
transfer the holding by
sale,
(iii) a tenant on Patta
Dawami or Istamrari
referred to in Section 17;
[(e) held a grove holder]
on the date immediately preceding the date of
vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State
Government with such intermediary, [lessee,
tenant, grantee or grove-holder,] as the case may
be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this
Act, be entitled to take or retain possession as
bhumidhar thereof.
(2) Every person belonging the class mentioned
in [Section 3 or sub-section (2) of Section 3-A] of
the United Provinces Agricultural Tenants
(Acquisition of Privileges) Act. 1949 (U.P. Act X of
1949), who has been granted the declaration referred
to in Section 6 of the said Act, in respect of any
holding or share thereof shall, unless the
declaration is subsequently set aside, be deemed to
be the bhumidhar of the holding or the share in
respect of which the declaration has been made and
continues in force.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the United
Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of
Privileges) Act, 1949 (U.P. Act X of 1949), any
declaration granted under Section 6 of the said Act,
in favour of a tenant whom subsection (2) of Section
10 applies, shall be and is hereby cancelled and the
amount deposited by him under Section 3 or 6 of the
said Act, shall, after deducting the amount which
might have been paid or be payable by the State
Government to his land-holder under Section 7 and 8
of the said Act, be refunded to the person entitled
in such manner as may be prescribed.
4
The Act, as part of agrarian reforms, was designed to
eliminate the rights of intermediaries claiming any right qua
agricultural lands. By statutory mandate, the rights of such
intermediaries would stand abolished with the vesting of the
lands in favour of the State. However, by virtue of
provisions of the Act, the settlement of the lands would then
be deemed to have been made in favour of certain persons,
primarily those who were cultivating the lands and were
dependent on the land.
As a part of the statutory design, the lands held in
possession or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir,
Khudkasht or an intermediary’s grove held on the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting, would be deemed to
be settled with such intermediary, lessee, tenant, grantee or
grove-holder in terms of Section 18 of the Act. By virtue of
Section 14, a mortgagee in possession of an estate or share
therein, with effect from the date of vesting, would cease to
have any right to hold or possess any land in such estate.
This general principle in Section 14(1) of the Act would then
stand qualified by two principles emanating from Sub-
Section(2) of Section 14. In terms of Sub-Clause (a) of
Section 2, if the land was sir or Khudkasht of the mortgagor
on the date of the mortgage, for the purposes of Section 18,
the land would be deemed to be sir or khudkasht of the
5
mortgagor or his legal representative. Sub-Clause (b) of Sub-
Section (2) would then stipulate that if the land was not sir
or Khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of mortgage, the
mortgagee would get the right to have settlement in his favour
subject to his paying to the State Government an amount equal
to five times the rent etc.
In the instant case, the mortgage was created way back
in 1929 and as the finding recorded by Settlement Officer,
(Consolidation) discloses, the land was recorded as ‘Sir and
Khudkasht’ of the ancestors of the mortgagor in ‘Bandobast
Soyam’ which was carried out in the year, 1937.
On the basis of these facts, the appeal was allowed by
Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which order was, however,
set aside by Deputy Director (Consolidation). While
considering the rival views on this issue, the High Court
observed in paragraph 2 of its judgment as under:
“2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records, the Court finds that the D.D.C.
has not given any cogent reason for recording that the
land in question was not Sir Khudkasht, whereas, the
S.O.C. in his order has specifically given reasons in
support of his finding none of which has been
considered and dislodged by the D.D.C. The S.O.C., in
his order has referred to the relevant revenue records
wherein the forefathers of the petitioners were
recorded Sir Khudkasht in the third settlement as also
in the Khatauni of 1359 falsi. He also opined that
[“Khewat Murthini used of to be made of that land,
which used to be land of sir and khudkasht before
mortgage”]. None of the reasonings given by the S.O.C.
has been considered by the D.D.C., therefore, this
finding is bereft of any sound foundation and is
perverse.”
6
The High Court found that no cogent reasons were given by
Deputy Director (Consolidation) for recording that the land
was not sir or Khudkasht. The finding rendered by Deputy
Director (Consolidation) was thus found to be without any
reason or basis. The High Court then proceeded to allow the
petition and restore the order passed by Settlement Officer
(Consolidation). The matter was thus found to be covered by
Section 14(2)(a) of the Act.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not
find any error in appreciation by the High Court so as to
call for interference in our jurisdiction under Article
136(1) of the Constitution.
The SLP is accordingly dismissed.
…………………………………………………………J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…………………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
NEW DELHI;
12th May, 2022.
7
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3939/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-02-2019
in CN No. 507/1995 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
KARM PAL (SINCE DECEASED) & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
(ADMINISTRATIVE / JUDICIAL) SULTANPUR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R., IA No.26434/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. and IA No.26430/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING
THE DEFECTS and IA No.26432/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 12-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv.
Ms. Shradha Narayan, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Sahay, Adv.
Mr. Chittaranjan Sahay, Adv
Mr. A. Karthik, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. I.D. Shukla, Adv.
Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The SLP is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)