FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. v. SEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 929

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. VARADARAJAN

Case summary

But the other claimants 35 to 56 before the Collector who were tenants of some other extents out of the acquired land claimed compensation in respect of those extents on the ground that they were prospective bhumidhars under the Land Reforms Act and challenged the rights of...

Judgment text

' FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. v. SEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. ' - September 13, 1983 [D. A. DESAI, 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY AND A. VAMDARAJAN, JJ. ] ' Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954-S. 15 read with S: 13\-lnterpretation of- Persons who cQn be declared Bhumidhars. -Declaration of Bhumidhars mandatory -In spite ofdelay in or absence of declaration the tenant entitled to acquire . Bhumidharirights acquires those rights. ' A certain extent of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. The acquired land included a piece of land which had been mortgaged by its owners and let out by the mortgagee to a tenant who in turn had let ·out to the first respondent in both the appeals. The Collector awarded compensation to the land-owners. The first respondent objected to the award on > ; the ground that "since he had acquired the status of Bhumidhar under the Delhi Land Ri. :forms Act, 1954 he was entitled to receive the entire compensation.

On an application made by the first respondent tte Collector made a refecence to the District Judge. In the meantime in disposing of an application under s. 15 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act made by the land-owners for redemption of mortgage, the Revenue Assistant declared that the first respon· dent was Bhumidhar of the land which was in bis possession as sub-lessee with . effect from the date of commencement of that Act. The Additional District Judge held that the first Resp0ndent was entitled to the entire co1npensation. The appeal filed by the land-owners wa's dismissed by the High Court. In • r this appeal the land-owners submitted that since they had redeemed the mortgage by resort to the provisions contained in s. 15(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, they had become Bhumidhars 'under s. · 15(2) of that Act and were, therefore, entitled to the entire compensa~ion as Bhumidhars which Was rightly paid by the Collector.

Dismissing the appeals, ,• HELD : The first reSpondent is entitled to the Bhul:nidhar's portion of compensation. [937 G] Section 15(2) ne lnder Singh and he in turn had sub-let the land to the first respondent Sewa Ram and he was in possession of the same·on the date of commencement of that Act. ThCrefore, the appel.. ! ants in Civil Appeal 1195 of 1970 as owners could not have become Bhumidhars in respect of that portion ofland. [936 B-DJ . Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 15 states that where any portion of the mortgaged land has been let out to tenants they shall be declare a as Bhumidbars ·of the area let out to them. Therefore, the appellants in C. A. 1195of1970 could - ' not in law have been d. eclared as Bhumidhars under. s. 15(2) of ihe Delhi Land Reforms Act when that land. was adrllittedly under the cultivation of the first respondent S_ewa Ram as subtenant under the mortgagee's tenant.

[936 E·F] Section 13(1) of the Act lays down that on the commencement of that Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall declare certain classes of tennnts as Bhumidhars who shall, with effeCt from the same date, have all the rights and be subject to. all the liabilities conferred or in1posed upon Bhumidhars ,under >-· that Act. There could be no doubt that the first respondent Sewa Ram would have' acquired Bhun1idhari rights under s. 13(1), of the Act on the date of its commencement. Merely_ because there is some delay in the Deputy Commissioner or Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant as Bhumidhar under the provisions of the Act or because there is no such _declaration at all the 0 tenant entitled to acquire such _rights under the Act from the date of 'its commencement cannot be said to have not acquired those ri&hts having regard to the :. . words of s.

13(2) of the Act which says that any person who acquires Bhumidhari rights under any provisions of this Act shall have all the rights arid shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Bhumidhars under this Act with effect from the _date of acquisition of thos'e rights. Stibsections (2) and (4) of s. 15 cast an, obligation on the Deputy Commissioner to dedare' as Bhurriidhars persons who have become enlitled. to that right under . the proviSions of the Act by admission or acquisition under the provisiOnS of the Act as Bhumidhars. [936 G; 937 A, D-FJ · '; ---.. j CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1195 & 1780 & of 1970. , Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment ,and Order dated the 30th Day of January, l970 of the Delhi High Court in Civil • Regu)ar First Appeal No. 55 ·and 56 of 1963. B. Datta and H. K. Puri for the Appellant in CA. 1195/70. ' V. D. Mahajan and M. C. Dhingra for Respondent. · - M. S. Gujaral, P. D. Sharma and Ms.

Bani Gujaral for Respondent in CA. 1195 & Appellant in CA. 1780/70. H. K. Puri for Respondent in CA. 1780/70. FATEH SINGH v. SEWA RAM (Varadarajan 1. ) 93i V. D. Mahajan and M. C. Dhingra for Respondent in CA. A' 1780/70. . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJ~N, J. These appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963 filed against the ju High Court held that he had been declared to be the Bhumidhar with effect from the date of commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in respect of the said 196 bighas of land and he was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 29,77~. 07. They dismissed RFA 55 of 1963 filed. by the owners. Hence these appeals by certificate. Mr. B. Datta, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in C. A.

1195 of 1970, admitted that the first respondent Sewa Ram was in actual possession of the said 196 bighas of land on the date of the notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act made after 'the date of commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 as sub-tenant who had been inducted by the tenant to whom the land had been leased by the mortgagee Ram Swarup and submiited that subsequent to the notification under ·s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the mortgagors had redeemed the 'mortgage by rernrt to the provisions contained ins. 15 (I) of the Delhi Land. Reforms Act within the period of nine months presc~ibed therefor and had thus D. become Bhumidhars under s. 15 (2) of that Act and they arc, there- , fore, entitled to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 29,774. 07 as Bhumidhars • ,L and were rightly paid by the Collector on 19. 3. 1956. · Sections 15 (I) and (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 read thus: "15 (I) A mortga.

gee in possession of an estate or share therein shall cease to have any right in such estate or share; if the proprietor mortgagor deposits the mortgage money together with interest thereon in Government trea- ' sury and applies for 'redemption of the· mortgage in the proper court, within a period of nine months from the commencement of this Act. ' (2) If the proprietor mortgagor deposits the amount and applies for redemption as provided in sub-section (! ), · he shall be declared as Bhumidhar in respect of the mortgaged area which was under the personal. cultivation of the mortgagee on the date of such application for redemption and, if any part of the mortgaged area was 1:i on the said date let out to a tenant, sueh tenant shall be 'declared . as Bhnmidhar in respect of the area that . was so let out to him. " · 936 SUPREME COuRT RBPORTS [i983] ~ s. c. a. Sub-section (4) of s.

15 which has to be noticed, reads thus: "15 (4) Where the area mortgaged or part thereof is let out to tenants, the mortgagee shall be declared as the Bhumidhar of the part under his personal cultivation and the tenants shall be declared .! IS . Bhumidhars of their respective areas let out to them". I The argument of Mr. Datta overlooks the important part of s. 15 (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms A. ct which says that the mortgagor shall be declared as Bhumidhar only in respect of the mortgaged area which was in the personal cultivation of the mortgagee when he submitted that the owners became Bhumidhars of the ... land under the provisions of s. , 15 (2) of the Act. It is common· ground that before the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the mortgagee Ram Swarup had let the land in question to one , Inder Singh and he in turn hap sub-let the land to the first. respondent Sewa Ram and he was in possession of the same on the date of commencement of that Act.

Therefore, the appellants in C. A. 1195of1970 as owners could not have become Bhumidhars in respect of that portion. If they had obtained any such declaration under s. 15 (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, it could have been only by misleading the Court to believe that the said poition was under the personal cultivation of the mortgagee and not in the possession of any tenant under . the mortgage or his sub-tenant. The argument of Mr. Datta also overlooks the provisions of sub-section (4) of s. l 5 which states that where any portion of the mortgaged land has been let out . to tenants they shall be declared as Bhumidhars of the area let out to them. Therefore, the appellants in C. A. 1195 of 19 70 could not in law have been declared a:s Bhumidhars under s. 15 (2) of the Delhi ·Land Reforms Act when that land was admittedly under the cultivation of the first respondent Sewa Ram as · sub-tenant under the mortgagee's tenant. Section 13 0).

of the Delhi Land Reforms Act Jays down that on the commencent of that Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall declare certain classes of t~nants as Bhumidhars who shall, with effect from the same date, have': all the rights and be subject to all the liablities conforred or ·impps~ conferred or imopsed upon Bhumidhars under this Act with effect from the date <if admission or acquisition, as the case may bi'. Tilo present case b'sore m is one of the tenant acquiring bhumidhari rights under the Act on the date of its eommencement and not of his being admitted to Bhumidhari rigths after the date of commencement of the Act. Merely because there was some delay in the Deputy Commissioner o~ Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant as Bhumidhar under the provisions of the Act or because there is no such declaration at all the tenant entitled to acquire such rights under the Act from the date of its commencement cannot be said to have not acquired those rights having regard to the words of s.

13 (2) of the Act which says that any person who acquires bhumidhari rights under any provisions of this Act shall have all the rights and shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Bhumidhars under this Act with effect from the date of acquisition of those rights. Sub-sections (2) and (4) of s. 15 cast an obligation on the Deputy Commissioner to ~eclare as Bhumidhars persons who have become entitled to that right under the prov·isions of the Act by admission or 'acquisition under the provisions of the Act as Bhmpidhars. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Datta that the ap,pellants in C. A. 1195 who were owners, have become Bhumi<lhars by reason of redemption of the mortgage under the provisions of s. 15 (I) of the Act and that the first respondent Sewa Ram will not be entitled to the Bhumidhar's portion of the compensation. ~ Mr. M. S. Gujral, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants . in C. A.

1780 of 1970 submitted that Inder Singh and Bhagwati / Prasad alone has received the sum of Rs. 29,774. 07 and, therefore . ·- ' they alone should be made liable to . pay that amount to the. first respondent if the appellants fail to succeed in these appeals. Inder Singh is the third respondent in C. A. 1195 of 1970 and the first appellant in C. A. 1}80 of 1970. Bhagwati Prasad is the second appellant in C. A. 1195 of 1970, and fourth respondent in C. A. 1780 of 1970. They were respondents 2 and4 in LPA 103 of 1960. There is no doubt an admission of these two persons that in a partition the portion which was under the cultivation of the first respondent Sewa Ram had been allotted to their share and that consequently they alone had received the compensation of Rs. 29,774. 07. But that is , a matter between the appellants in these appeals and those two persons Inder Singh and Bhagwati Prasad. · It cannot bind the first respondent Sewa Ram: Therefore, the request 'or Mr.

Gujaral cannot be complied with. - ' . The appeals fail for the reasons ·mentioned above and are · dismissed witli the first responde. nt's costs. Advocate fee one set. 0 . ' H. S. K. Appeals dismissed. · . . , /