Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act Case Concerning Intermediary's Grove Rights. Lessee of an Intermediary's Grove Land Acquires No Subsisting Interest After Commencement of the Act as Section 18(1) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Confers Bhumidhari Rights Only on the Intermediary.

Case Note & Summary

The appeal before the Supreme Court of India arose from a dispute over a zamindari grove in Uttar Pradesh. The grove originally belonged to a number of co-sharers and, after partition, fell to the share of Sakhawat Ali and Hafiz Ali. On 16 February 1946, Hafiz Ali executed a composite document of lease and sale in favour of the appellant Ram Prakash, letting out his share in the grove land and selling his share in the standing trees. On the same day, Smt. Abbasi, widow of Sakhawat Ali, executed a similar document for herself and as guardian of her minor sons and daughters. Subsequently, the proprietary rights of some other co-sharers in the grove land were sold to Mohammad Ali. In 1946, Ram Prakash instituted a suit against Mohammad Ali and others for injunction and alternatively for possession over the grove. In 1947, Mohammad Ali and others filed a rival suit for cancellation of the leases, contending that the leases were invalid under Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act because they were executed by only some of the co-sharers. The trial court dismissed Ram Prakash's suit and decreed Mohammad Ali's suit. The lower appellate court granted a decree in favour of Ram Prakash for joint possession over the shares of Hafiz Ali and Smt. Abbasi in the grove land, but held that the lease executed by Smt. Abbasi as guardian of the minors was invalid. Mohammad Ali filed two second appeals in the Allahabad High Court, numbered 2350 and 2351 of 1953. Second appeal No.2351 was dismissed by a learned Judge. Second appeal No.2350 came up for hearing before another learned Judge, who allowed the appeal with respect to the lease of grove land and dismissed it as regards the sale of trees, holding that after the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the appellant had no subsisting interest in the land. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the appellant, as lessee of an intermediary's grove land, had any subsisting interest after the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and whether the dismissal of second appeal No.2351 operated as res judicata. The appellant argued that he had valid lease rights and that the earlier dismissal of Mohammad Ali's suit for cancellation validated the leases. The respondents argued that under the Act, only intermediaries became bhumidars, and the lessee was not an intermediary. The Supreme Court examined Section 18(1) of the Act, which provided that all lands in possession or held or deemed to be held by an intermediary as an intermediary's grove on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary. Section 2(12) defined an intermediary as a proprietor, under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, thekedar, permanent lessee in Avadh, permanent tenure-holder of an estate or part thereof. Section 2(13) defined intermediary's grove as grove land held or occupied by an intermediary as such. The Court found that the disputed grove was an intermediary's grove, and Mohammad Ali and others, being intermediaries on the relevant date, became its bhumidars. The lessee of an intermediary's grove land was not an intermediary because he did not fall within the definition, and no other provision of the Act gave him any kind of interest in the intermediary's grove land. The Court held that the scheme of the Act was to create new rights in place of old rights, and the old rights were dead and gone after the commencement of the Act, relying on Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. and Jamshed Jahan Begam v. Lakhan Lal. On res judicata, the Court held that the decision in second appeal No.2351 could not operate as res judicata because the question whether the Act gave any rights to the appellant was not considered in that appeal; that appeal concerned only the validity of leases under Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The Court also observed that the grove land was covered by the Act and governed by its provisions, not by the Transfer of Property Act. In the result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the appellant had no subsisting interest in the grove land.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the appellant had no subsisting interest in the grove land after the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Law Points