BRIJ BEHARI SAHAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals, arising out of a common judgment dated 8-2-1995 of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal Nos. 74 to 80 of 1982, involving identical questions of law and similar facts, are dealt with together.

(2.) The immovable properties, land and buildings in question, which are the subject-matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), forming part of large extent were granted by competent authority on behalf of the Government of North Western Provinces of British India by a deed dated 24-12-1862 subject only to the conditions stipulated therein, which included, apart from the payment of the lump sum amount specified therein, the rent/ground rent up to 31-7-1869 the periodical payment of on and from 31st July, 1869 revised annual ground rent that may be fixed by the Revenue Collector of Allahabad District, in favour of one Mr. Walter Edmond Davis, Indigo Plantor of Bengal. The same was sold to and purchased from the said grantee by the Right Reverend Doctor Avastasins Hartmann of the Roman Catholic Mission Lord Bishop and Victor Apostolic of Patna under a registered sale deed dated 7-1-1863 whose successor-in-office Right Reverend Doctor Pesci sold the properties more fully described in and under a sale deed dated 13-5-1886, in favour of General Puddum Jung Bahadur Rana, who hailed from Nepal but settled in Nynetal, the great grand father of Rana Pratap Jung Bahadur, Rana Pradyuman Jung Bahadur and Rana Rutasan Jung Bahadur. It is also claimed that Rana Paddum Jung Bahadur also took, in addition to these properties, on lease additional extent of lands measuring about 68 Bighas and 7 Biswas on different dates. It is further claimed that in the year 1910 the management of the lands in question was entrusted to the Municipal Board of Allahabad, subsequently came to be renamed as Nagar Mahapalika of Allahabad and the said body had these properties recorded in the name of the descendants of Rana Padam Jung Bahadur in the Property Register of the Nazul section.

(3.) While matters stood thus, in the year 1941 the State of U.P. seems to have instituted proceedings to recover the arrears of ground rent due from the heirs of the owners and a suit again seems to have been filed in the year 1959 also for the same purpose admitting the relationship between parties, the Government of U.P. and the heirs of Late Rana to be lessor and lessee. The authorities of the State seem to have started asserting in some form or other in correspondence as well as some of these litigations that the heirs of Rana had only a limited leasehold interest and that the period of such leasehold interest also expired by efflux of time and in the absence of renewal thereafter, the heirs of Rana were said to be in possession of the leasehold properties only as a tenant holding over and not as a tenant under a perpetual lease. In the year 1970, the State appears to have filed a suit seeking for recovery of the arrears of ground rent and for eviction and when the claim of the State was rejected at the appellate stage the State does not appear to have pursued the matter further. It is in the backlog of such claims and counter-claims the present acquisition proceedings seem to have been initiated to acquire portions of the land on 23-10-1976. The stand of the State during the award proceedings and thereafter even before a Reference Court initially was one admitting the interest of the appellants and their predecessor-in-title, but by the time the Reference Court could decide the matters finally, the State appears to have filed additional written statements disputing the rights of the appellants and their predecessor-in-interest in toto by asserting that the term of lease of Rana family expired and, therefore, they had no interest, title or right in the lands in question and that the lands have already vested absolutely with the State of U.P. and, therefore, the transferees from the heirs and successors-in-interest of Rana cannot claim any share in the compensation. While thus disputing the rights and claims of the appellants, the State started asserting that the State alone is the absolute owner of the lands in question with the trees standing thereon and as such entitled to the whole of the compensation.