Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the right of the respondent, Kunwar Sri Trivikram Narain Singh, to continue receiving an annual allowance and remission in revenue following the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The historical background traced to the cession of the Province of Banaras to the East India Company around 1775 and the grant of a jagir in pargana Syudpore Bhettree to Diwan Ousan Singh. After a Collector's inquiry under Regulation 11 of 1819 declared the grant to be for life only, the Government resumed the jagir and later offered terms to the jagirdar's descendants. Following litigation and compromise, the settlement resulted in an arrangement finalized in 1838 whereby for 166 mahals settled with village zamindars, the respondent's ancestor, Harnarain Singh, and his heirs in perpetuity were to be paid an annual pension of one-fourth of the net collections after deducting Tehsildari charges, amounting to Rs.30,612-8-0; for 12 mahals settled directly with Harnarain Singh, the allowance was given as a remission of one-fourth of the revenue assessed. The allowance and remission were paid through the Treasury year after year until 1951, when the revenue authorities stopped payment under Section 6(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, after issuance of a notification under Section 4. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court claiming that the pension did not vest in the State because it was neither land nor immovable property nor an estate, but merely compensation for the extinction of ancestral rights. The High Court allowed the writ, prompting the State appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the allowance and held that it was granted as consideration for settlement of a civil suit relating to land, not in respect of land or its revenue; its quantum was measured by reference to a share of land revenue but it did not acquire the quality of land or land revenue. The Court further held that the allowance did not fall within the entries described in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 32 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, because the respondent's name was not entered in revenue records as a proprietor or assignee of land revenue. Regarding the 12 mahals, the Court held that the respondent was a proprietor of those mahals, which constituted an estate under Section 3(8) of the Act, and by virtue of the notification under Section 4, his rights vested in the State, extinguishing the right to remission. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal: the right to receive the annual pension for 166 mahals was upheld, but the right to remission for the 12 mahals was held to have been extinguished.
Headnote
A) Zamindari Abolition - Interpretation of 'Estate' and Vesting - Proprietary Rights in 12 Mahals - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Sections 3(8), 4 - The 12 mahals settled with the respondent's ancestor constituted an 'estate' within the meaning of Section 3(8); upon notification under Section 4, all rights, title and interest of the respondent in that estate stood vested and transferred to the State; the respondent was a proprietor of those mahals and his proprietary rights extinguished. Held that the right of remission of one-fourth revenue for those 12 mahals could not be converted into a positive right to receive the amount after vesting. B) Zamindari Abolition - Allowance/Pension in Lieu of Land Rights - Interpretation of Section 6(b) - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 6(b) - The 1838 arrangement granted an annual allowance of Rs.30,612-8-0 for 166 mahals as pension in consideration of settlement of a civil claim; the allowance was not in respect of land or its revenue, was granted as consideration for settlement of a litigated claim relating to land, and lacked the quality of land or land revenue. Held that Section 6(b), which extinguishes grants of title, right or privilege in respect of land in an estate or its revenue, did not extinguish the right to receive such an allowance because it was not a grant in respect of land or revenue. C) Land Revenue - Entries in Revenue Registers - Scope of Section 32 clauses (a) to (d) - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Section 32 clauses (a) to (d) - The allowance was not 'an area included under one entry in any of the registers' described in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 32; a person receiving an allowance from the State in consideration of extinction of a right to land or land revenue is not a proprietor who is an assignee of land revenue. Held that unless the name is entered in the revenue record under those clauses, the provisions relating to computation of gross and net assets did not apply to the allowance holder. D) Legislative Intent - Extinguishment of Intermediary Interests - Allowance as Personal Right - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 6(b) - The intention of the Legislature was to extinguish estates and all derivative rights in estates and to extinguish the interest of intermediaries between the State and the tiller of the soil; a mere personal allowance granted in settlement of a claim for extinguishment of a right to land was not such an intermediary interest. Held that the Act did not intend to extinguish the right to receive an allowance granted in consideration of extinction of a right to land or land revenue by operation of Section 6(b).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the annual allowance/pension payable for 166 mahals under the 1838 arrangement was an interest in land or land revenue and thus extinguished by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; whether the respondent was a proprietor of the 12 mahals and his remission right was extinguished upon vesting
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The Supreme Court held that the right to receive the annual allowance of Rs.30,612-8-0 for 166 mahals did not vest in the State under Section 6(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as it was not an interest in land or land revenue but a personal allowance granted in settlement of a civil claim. However, the respondent was a proprietor of the 12 mahals, which constituted an estate under Section 3(8) and vested in the State under Section 4; the right of remission for those mahals was extinguished and could not be converted into a positive right to receive the amount.
Law Points
- Pension granted as compensation for extinction of right to land or land revenue is not an interest in land
- not an estate
- and does not vest in State under Section 6(b) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- 1950
- allowance measured by reference to land revenue does not acquire character of land revenue
- Section 32 clauses (a) to (d) of U.P. Land Revenue Act
- 1901 require entry in revenue registers for assignee of land revenue
- proprietary rights in 12 mahals constituted an estate under Section 3(8) and vested under Section 4
