Supreme Court of India
Hakim Ali And Anr vs Board Of Revenue U.P. And Ors on 19 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 972, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 566, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 972, 1991 AIR SCW 252, 1990 ALL. L. J. 966, 1991 SCD 303, (1991) 1 JT 22 (SC), 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 673, 1991 (2) ALL CJ 912, 1991 UJ(SC) 1 673, 1991 ALL CJ 2 912, 1991 (1) SCC(SUPP) 565, 1991 (1) JT 22, (1991) 1 ALL WC 392
Author: S.C. Agrawal
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, M.M. Punchhi
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.
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
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: