Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against an order of the Allahabad High Court dated 12.1.1976 in Civil Misc. Writ No.7483/71. The dispute arose from ejectment proceedings under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 concerning agricultural plots in villages Kanjauli Uparhar and Janjauli Kachhar, Tappa Chaurasi, P.P. Khairagarh, District Allahabad. One Hanuman Singh, the brother-in-law of minor Gulab Singh, had executed a mortgage of the lands in favour of the respondent. After the Act came into force on 26.1.1951, the appellant filed a suit under Section 209 for ejectment of the respondent. All revenue courts including the Board of Revenue concurrently held that Hanuman Singh was neither a natural guardian nor a property guardian appointed to manage the minor's estate, making the mortgage void. The respondent's claims of adverse possession and asami status were rejected. However, in the writ petition, the High Court for the first time held that because the respondent came into possession as a mortgagee, a civil suit for redemption and eviction was necessary before Section 209 proceedings could be maintained, and set aside the tribunal orders. The core legal issue was whether the revenue courts under the Act had jurisdiction to eject the respondent without a prior civil suit for redemption. The appellant contended that the mortgage was void, the mortgage debt was statutorily extinguished, and no redemption was required. He relied on Section 331 read with Schedule II which excluded civil court jurisdiction and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Assistant Collector. The respondent argued adverse possession and asami status, and the High Court accepted the need for a redemption suit. The Supreme Court relied on Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad (1962) 2 SCR 441, which held that after the Act came into force, proprietary rights in Sir, Khudkast and grove land were extinguished and bhumidari rights were new rights not included in the prior mortgage. The mortgagee could only enforce rights against compensation money under Section 6(h) read with Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not by sale of bhumidari rights as substituted security. Therefore, the liability to redeem was statutorily extinguished and the mortgage was void, so no redemption suit was required. Section 209 expressly provides for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and without the consent of the bhumidar. Section 331(1) excludes civil court jurisdiction notwithstanding Section 9 CPC, and Schedule II item 24 assigns cognizance of Section 209 matters to the Assistant Collector. The Court thus held that the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction, and the High Court's order was erroneous. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and restored the orders of the tribunals below, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Reforms - Extinguishment of Mortgage and Bhumidari Rights - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Sections 6(a)(i), 6(h), 18 - A mortgage of Sir, Khudkast, or grove land executed by a non-guardian of a minor was void; upon the Act coming into force, proprietary rights were extinguished and bhumidari rights created were new and special rights not subject to prior mortgage; the mortgagee could only follow compensation money under Section 6(h) read with Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not enforce sale of bhumidari rights as substituted security - Held that the mortgagee had no subsisting right to claim redemption or possession and the appellant was not obliged to file a civil suit for redemption (Paras 1-2). B) Ejectment of Unauthorised Occupant - Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with law and without consent of the bhumidar is liable to ejectment and damages; the section does not require a prior suit for redemption of mortgage when the mortgage is void - Held that proceedings under Section 209 were maintainable and the respondent was liable to be ejected (Paras 2-3). C) Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts - Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction - Section 331 and Schedule II of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Civil court jurisdiction is excluded for matters enumerated in Schedule II; Assistant Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of ejectment suits under Section 209 - Held that the High Court erred in holding that a civil suit for redemption was necessary, as the revenue courts had exclusive jurisdiction (Para 3). D) Procedural Objection - Section 331(1)(a) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - An objection to jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest stage, but the Supreme Court did not need to decide this as Section 209 itself conferred jurisdiction on the Assistant Collector - Held that the objection to jurisdiction was not sustainable (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that proceedings under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were not maintainable without a prior civil suit for redemption of mortgage and eviction; and whether the revenue courts under the Act had exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a person in possession under a void mortgage.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The order of the High Court dated 12.1.1976 in Civil Misc. Writ No.7483/71 was set aside, and the orders of the tribunals below under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- 1950
- proprietary rights in Sir
- Khudkast and grove land were extinguished and Bhumidari rights were new rights not subject to prior mortgage
- Mortgagee could enforce rights only against compensation money under Section 6(h) read with Section 73 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 209 of the Act provides for ejectment of persons occupying land without title and without consent of bhumidar
- Section 331 read with Schedule II excludes civil court jurisdiction and confers exclusive jurisdiction on Assistant Collector for Section 209 proceedings
- A void mortgage does not require a prior civil suit for redemption before ejectment proceedings under Section 209
