MAHENDRA LAL JAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutionality of U.P. Land Tenures Regulation of Transfers) Act, No. XV of 1952, (hereinafter called the Transfer Act) and the Indian Forest (U. P. Amendment) Act, No. V of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Amendment Act). The case of the petitioner is that he obtained a permanent lease from the Maharaja Bahadur of Nahan of certain land known as asarori" land, situate in the district of Debra Dun, in Uttar Pradesh. The area leased out to him was 1069.68 acres in khewat No. 1, Mahal No. 8, khasra Nos. 1-A, 1-B and 2. This land was originally a Crown grant and had been free from revenue since 1866. Initially, it belonged to Major P. Innes but was subsequently transferred to the Maharaja Bahadur of Nahan. on January 25, 1951, an agreement was executed by the Maharaja Bahadur in favour of the petitioner and one Virendra Goyal for lease of this land on a consideration of an annual rent of Rs. 2,200/- and a premium of Rs. 64,000/-. The petitioner's case further is that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to him at the time the agreement to lease was executed. It appears that at that time a large number of trees were standing on this land and the Maharaja Bahadur had given a contract for the removal of the trees to another person with a view to making the land culturable, and the intention of the lessor was to demise the land to the petitioner after the trees were removed, so that the petitioner may carry on agricultural operations hereon on June 14 1952, a registered lease was executed by the Maharaja Bahadur in favour of the petitioner and Virendra Goyal and it was recited therein that the entire land had been cleared of the trees and had been in possession of the lessees from the date of the agreement referred to above. Therefore, on fulfilment of the agreement, the lease was executed demising to the lessees the land in question on an annual rent of Rs. 2,200/-. The lease was permanent, heritable and transferable. The lease also provided that the lessor had given the right of hereditary tenancy within the meaning of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 to the lessees. The lessees were also given the right to put the land to any other use whatsoever besides agriculture and subterranean rights were also conferred. They had also the right to sub-let and assign the land.

(2.) The petitioner's case further is that Virendra Goyal is merely a benamidar and has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute and that a suit for declaration in that behalf is pending in the civil court at Dehra Dun between the petitioner and Virendra Goyal. A day after the agreement of lease was executed the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. l of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act), came into force on January 26, 1951, and the land in dispute is land within the meaning of this Act. The Abolition Act was actually applied to this area by a notification issued under S. 4 thereof from July 1, 1952, shortly after the registered lease in favour of the petitioner and another had been made. The contention of the petitioner is that in consequence of the application of the Abolition Act to this area, the petitioner became a bhumidhar of the land under S. 18 (d) (iii) of the Abolition Act and that his bhumidhari rights still subsist on July 5, 1952, the petitioner and his employees went to the land to carry on agricultural operations, but they were stopped from doing so by the City Magistrate, Dehra Dun along with the Divisional Forest officer and the Tehsildar, Dehra Dun. He was ordered to desist from clearing the land until further orders. The matter was then referred to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the petitioner was ordered to desist from doing anything which was contrary to the U. P. Private Forests Act, 1948 (Act No. VI of 1949). It may be mentioned that in the meantime the Transfer Act which was passed on June 23, 1952, came into force with retrospective effect from May 21, 1952. By this Act all transfers made by intermediaries after May 21, 1952 were declared void. The petitioner was therefore asked by the City Magistrate not to do anything contrary to the Transfer Act until the orders of Government were received or the matter was decided by a court of law. The petitioner's case is that the land was no longer forest land when the registered lease in his favour was made in June 1952. The petitioner then took up the matter with the Government but his representation in that behalf was rejected in September 1952.

(3.) Thereupon in November 1952, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad challenging the applicability of the U.P. Private Forests Act to the land in dispute and also challenging the constitutionality of the Transfer Act. An ad interim order was passed by the High Court in December 1952 restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and directing that the parties should maintain the status quo. In February 1955, the petitioner withdrew the petition filed in the High Court for various reasons into which it is unnecessary to go. Thereafter the petitioner requested the Collector, Dehra Dun, to allow him to carry out agricultural operations over the land in dispute and he supported this prayer by a further allegation that he had at any rate become a sirdar within the meaning of S. 210 of the Abolition Act and was thus entitled to retain the land in dispute. The Collector again informed the petitioner that the matter had been referred to the Government and in the meantime the status quo should be maintained. In his present petition also, the petitioner in the alternative raise the plea that he has become a sirdar of the land in dispute and as no steps were taken by the State to eject him within two years of the date of vesting, namely, July 1, 1952, he was entitled to retain the possession of the land as sirdar.