BABU NOORUL HASAN KHAN v. RAM PRASAD SINGH & ORS (2)

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 977

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA, A.D. KOSHAL

Case summary

·The Civil Judge sent the matter for decision to an Arbitrator appointed under the Act as the dispute gave rise to the question of title. He allowed the objections on the ground that the illegality of the Award was apparent ,on the face of it in as much as the Arbitrator did...

Judgment text

BABU NOORUL HASAN KHAN v. RAM PRASAD SINGH & ORS. October 18, 1979 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ. J Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Secs. 11. 12, 13(1) & 13(2)-Scope of. The appellants and others were the Zan1indars of a village in which certain 1ands were given on Theka to the Respondent and others on 6th March, 1948, the Zarnindari having vested on 30th June. 19. 52. Disputes arose between tlie appellants and the respondents ° of this section a thekedar of an estate or share therein shall, with IJ effect from the date of vesting, cease to have· any-right to or possess as such any land in such estate. [! 980] 1 S. C. R. (2) Where any such land was in the personal cultiva- Jtion of the thekedar on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, the same shall- • (a) if it was sir cir khudkasht of the lessor on the date of the grant of the theka-;- be deemed for purposes of Section 18.

to be the sir or khudkasht of the lessor • on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and the thekedar shall, wifh effect from the date of · vesting, become the asami thereof liable to·pay rent at hereditary rates. applicable on the date imme-. diately preceding the date of vesting and entitled .. .. to hold the land.

as such for the unexpired period of the theka or for a period of five years from the date of vesting whichever is less; _/, - ,J ' (b) if it was not sir or khudkasht of the lessor on the date of the grant of the thcka and- (i} its area does not exceed thirty acres, be deemed for purposes of Section 19 to have been held by the thekedar as a hereditary tenant liable to pay rent which shall be equal to the rent calculated at hereditary rates applicable on the· date immediately preceding the date of vesting, (ii) its area exceeds thirty acres, be deemed to the extent of thirty acres for purposes of Section 19 to have been held as a hereditary tenant as aforesaid and the remainder shall be deemed to be vacant land and the thekedar shall be liable to ejectment therefrom in accordance with the provisions of Section 209.

'' It would be noticed from the provisions aforesaid that a Thekedar of an Estate ceases to have any right to hold or possess as such any land in such Estate with effect from the date of its vesting. This is what has been provided in sub-section (1) of section 13, But it is subject to two exceptions-viz. , one the provision contained in section 12 and the other engrafted in sub-section (2) of section 13. There is no dispute between the parties that the 'land in possession of the Thekedars on the date of vesting was either covered by section 12(I) , or section 13(2}(a}. We are not concerned in this case with section 13(2)(b) as the land admittedly was the Sir or Khudkasht of the lessor namely the Zamindars. If such a land was in the personal NOORUL HASAN v. RAM PARSAD (Untwalia, J. ) 981 cultivation of a person on the 1st day of May, 1950 as a Thekedar thereof and if the Theka was made with . a view to the cultivation of the land by such T/u.

kedar personally then, because of the' 11on-obsta11te. clause occurring in sub-section (1) of section 12 o[ the Act the • Thekedar would be deemed to be a hereditary tenant o! t'he lantd entitled to hold as such and liable to pay P~lll at hereditary rates. · If, however, the land was in personal cultivation of the 'rhekedar merely as a Thekedar appointed to• collect rent from other tenants and incidentally allowed to cultivate the Sir or Khudkasht land of the lessor then he will he a mere asami in accordance with section 13(2) (a) of the Ac:. The Arbitrator on a consideration of the Theka document found that the theka was made with a view to cultivation of the land by the Thekedar personally. The interpretation of the Arbitrator was not such that it could enable the Civil Jndge to take the view that there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. On the other hand it appears to us what the interpretation put by the Arbitrator was corn::ct.

There 'is a subtle but clear dividing line between the two types of cases one falling under sed:ion 12(1) of the Act and th. ;, other coming within the ambit of section 13 (2) (a). In our opinion the High Court was right in its view that the Award of the Arbitrator was not fit to be interfered with. Fur the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appca1 but in the circu111stal1ccs make no order as to cost-s. N. K. A. Appeal dismissed. ,,-· t '