# Court in Bharat Singh and another v. Smt. Bhudevi and another, 1987 RD 23

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 924
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-27
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 570 of 2001
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-in-bharat-singh-and-another-v-smt-bhudevi-and-another-1987-rd-23-42648
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Zamindari Abolution & Law Reform
Act 1951-Section 134- Cancellation of
sale deed-on ground when sale deed
executed-the executer had no right-as
before conversion of status from 'Sirdar'
to bhumidhar made as after despite-she
died-held-status stood change only on
date of deposit of 20 time revenue-date
of declaration immaterial-court below
rightly dismissed the suit-no substantial
question
of
law
involved-appeal
dismissed.

Held: Para-5
However,
this
view
has
not
been
approved by Apex Court in Deo Nandan
and another Vs. Ram Saran and others,
AIR 2000 SC 1192 wherein it has been
held that Bhumadhari rights will accrue
to a Sirdar on the date of deposit of
twenty times land revenue and rest of
the act is only ministerial. In view of
aforesaid decision of Apex Court in Deo
Nandan (supra) it cannot be said that the
law laid down by this Court in Bharat
Singh (supra) is a good law and,
therefore,
the
reliance
placed
on
aforesaid
decision
is
totally
misconceived. In Deo Nandan (supra)
the Apex Court has construed Section
134 of Act, 1951

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2000 SC 1192; 1971 RC 371; 1981 A.L.J.
402; 2012(5) ADJ 678

## Text

924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
of land revenue. However, it shall be open
for the Chief Secretary, Government of
U.P to recover the cost from the
concerned authorities who have passed
the impugned order.

Registry to take follow up action.

The
writ
petition
is
allowed
accordingly.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL- SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Second Appeal No. 570 of 2001

Jhurai

 ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Bali

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
R.K.
Chitragupt,
Sri
Siddharth
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
...

U.P. Zamindari Abolution & Law Reform
Act 1951-Section 134- Cancellation of
sale deed-on ground when sale deed
executed-the executer had no right-as
before conversion of status from 'Sirdar'
to bhumidhar made as after despite-she
died-held-status stood change only on
date of deposit of 20 time revenue-date
of declaration immaterial-court below
rightly dismissed the suit-no substantial
question
of
law
involved-appeal
dismissed.

Held: Para-5
However,
this
view
has
not
been
approved by Apex Court in Deo Nandan
and another Vs. Ram Saran and others,
AIR 2000 SC 1192 wherein it has been
held that Bhumadhari rights will accrue
to a Sirdar on the date of deposit of
twenty times land revenue and rest of
the act is only ministerial. In view of
aforesaid decision of Apex Court in Deo
Nandan (supra) it cannot be said that the
law laid down by this Court in Bharat
Singh (supra) is a good law and,
therefore,
the
reliance
placed
on
aforesaid
decision
is
totally
misconceived. In Deo Nandan (supra)
the Apex Court has construed Section
134 of Act, 1951

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2000 SC 1192; 1971 RC 371; 1981 A.L.J.
402; 2012(5) ADJ 678

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The plaintiff instituted Original
Suit No. 37 of 1984 for cancellation of
sale deed dated 20.09.1974 on the ground
that vendor, Smt. Mohra had died before
the date of alleged execution of sale deed;
she was only a Sirdar on the date when
sale deed was allegedly executed and has
no right to transfer the same by sale; and
Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act,
1882") has no application in the case in
hand.

3. From the record, however, it
cannot be disputed that Smt. Mohra
deposited twenty times of land revenue as
required under Section 134 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act, 1951") on 20.09.1974 and thereafter
the sale deed was executed. It was a
registered deed. The courts below have
found
that
Smt.
Mohra
died
on
28.09.1974.
2 All] Jhurai Vs. Ram Bali
925

4. On behalf of appellant reliance is
placed on a Single Judge judgment of this
Court in Bharat Singh and another Vs.
Smt. Bhudevi and another, 1987 RD 23
wherein it was held that after deposit of
twenty times of land revenue if the
incumbent Sirdar died, no Bhumadhari
Sanad could have been issued in favour of
that person as it would be a nullity and no
benefit or right would accrue on this basis.
Relying on Raghunandan Singh Vs.
Yashwant Singh, 1978 RD 183, it has been
held that the change of status of Sirdar into
Bhumidhar occurs when the Assistant
Collector makes judicial grant. The Court
said that it would mean that when judicial
order for grant of a certificate is passed, that
would be relevant.

5. However, this view has not been
approved by Apex Court in Deo Nandan
and another Vs. Ram Saran and others,
AIR 2000 SC 1192 wherein it has been
held that Bhumadhari rights will accrue to
a Sirdar on the date of deposit of twenty
times land revenue and rest of the act is
only ministerial. In view of aforesaid
decision of Apex Court in Deo Nandan
(supra) it cannot be said that the law laid
down by this Court in Bharat Singh
(supra) is a good law and, therefore, the
reliance placed on aforesaid decision is
totally misconceived. In Deo Nandan
(supra) the Apex Court has construed
Section 134 of Act, 1951 and said:

"Section
134,
from
its
plain
language, indicates and shows that on the
application being made and 10 times the
land revenue being paid, the sirdar
becomes entitled 'with effect from the
date on which the amount had been
deposited' to a declaration that he has
acquired the rights mentioned in Section
137 of the Act."

6. Thereafter it has also considered
the Full Bench judgment in Banshidhar
Vs. Smt. Dhirajadhari and others, 1971
RC 371 and Single Judge decisions
Mobin Khan Vs. Chunnu Khan and
others,
1981
A.L.J.
402
and
Raghunandan Singh (supra) and then
the Court said:

"In our opinion, the said decisions
run counter to the plain language and
meaning of Sections 134 and 137 as they
stood at the relevant point of time."

7. The judgment in Bharat Singh
(supra)
has
heavily
relief
on
Raghunandan Singh (supra) which has
been held to be not a correct decision and,
therefore, it follows that the decision in
Bharat Singh (supra) is also no longer a
good law, in view of recent decision of
Apex Court in Deo Nandan (supra). It
may be worthy to mention that the
decision in Deo Nandan (supra) has also
been followed by this Court in Chandan
Singh Vs. First Additional District
Judge and others, 2012(5) ADJ 678.

8. In view of above, no substantial
question of law has arisen in this matter.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J.

W.P. No. 657(MB) of 2002
with
W.P. No. 367(MB) of 2002, W.P. No.
388(MB) of 2002, W.P. No. 658(MB) of
2002,