MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two principal submissions, whose implications perhaps are of profound moment and have public impact, have been, at wide-ranging length, urged in this appeal by certificate, by Shri Shanti Bhusan, for the appellant/defendant and, with effective brevity controverted by the Solicitor General, for respondent/1st plaintiff. The two focal points of the controversy are; (a) Is the appeal to the High Court by the State/1st plaintiff at all competent, entitlement as a 'party aggrieved' being absent, having regard to the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (U. P. Act 1 of 1951) (for short, the Act) ; and (b)Is it sound to conceptualise 'area appurtenant to buildings' in Section 9 of the Act so narrowly as has been done by the High Court There were two plaintiffs - the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Gaon Sabha of Bedpura - claiming common but alternative reliefs. The suit was for injunction or ejectment, on title, of the sole defendant who was the quondam zamindar of the 'estate' which is the subject-matter of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit whereupon the 2nd plaintiff dropped out of the litigation, as it were, and the State alone pursued the manner by way of appeal against the decree. The High Court partially allowed the appeal and the aggrieved defendant is the appellant before us.

(2.) An expose of the facts may now be given to the extent necessary for explaining the setting of the contentions between the parties. The State of Uttar Pradesh extinguished all zamindari estates by the Act and implemented a scheme of settlement of lands with intermediaries, tenants and others by first vesting all estates in the State ad empowering it to vest, divest and re-vest from time to time according to flexible needs and ad hoc requirements, the same estates in Goan Sabhas or other local authorities. Settlement of trees, building and other specified items in the intermediaries was also part of the agrarian reform. A skeleton picture of the legislation may now be projected. But before that, a short sketch of the actual dispute may illumine the further discussion.

(3.) The suit lands were part of an estate owned and possessed by the defendant-zamindarini. The statutory consequence of the abolition of all zamindaris by force of Section 4 is spelt out in Section 6, to wit, the cesser of the ownership of the zamindar and vesting of title and possession in the State. By a notification under Section 117 (1) of the Act the area of lands was vested by the State in the 2nd plaintiff Gaon Sahba. The legislative nullification notwithstanding, the defendant who had been conducting a lucrative bi-weekly cattle fair, the best in the district, persisted in this profitable adventure strengthened by Section 9 of the Act which settles in the intermediary all buildings and area appurtenant thereto. This resulted in possessory disputes between the Gaon Sabha and the defendant-proceedings under Section 145 upholding the latter's possession and the present suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction or ejectment.