# State Of U.P. & Anr v. Sone Lal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 838
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-27
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1003418 of 1980
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-sone-lal-ors-48159
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. UP Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952 - Section
14 - Bhoodan Yagna Committee (BYC) -
Power of BYC to distribute the land to
landless
agricultural
labours
-
Permissibility - Committee formed in
1953 and distribution of land made in
1978, this distribution was made beyond
period of three years - Validity challenged
- Held, the Bhoodan Committee, Kheri did
not have power to distribute the land
amongst the respondents in the 1978 and,
it was the Collector, who could have
distributed the land if there was no
notification issued under Section 4 of the
Act, 1927 to constitute the land as
'reserved forest' - Held further, the
respondents
did
not
become
the
Bhumidhars on the basis of the alleged
patta/lease in their favour. (Para 36 and
37)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,585 of 45,347. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39585 for what follows._

838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been taken by the principal employer from
the contractor either by the deduction from
any amount which was payable to the
contractor or the amount paid by the principal
employer would have become a debt payable
by the contractor. Definitely, no order could
have been passed directly asking the principal
employer i.e. the petitioner for making the
payment to the workmen who were
employed by the contractor. Since the
contractor himself had not been made a party
in the proceedings before the Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central), definitely
no direction could be issued to the contractor
and, therefore, the direction which had been
issued to the principal employer could not
have also been issued at all.

16. Further, the Court finds that there
were various issues which had to be
thrashed out before any order could be
passed and a vague order could not have
been passed directing the petitioner to
ascertain as to who was working and who
was not working.

17. The Court also holds that since the
Appellate Authority was the Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central) and the
order was also passed by the Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner, no Appeal would
lie.

18. With these observations, the writ
petition stands allowed. The order dated
9.7.2021 passed by the Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central) is quashed.
The recovery etc. which might have been
issued in pursuance of the order dated
9.7.2021 also stands quashed.

19. It shall be open for the respondent
no. 2 to claim its dues under appropriate
proceedings provided under the law.
----------
(2022)02ILR A838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1003418 of 1980
and other cases

State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sone Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. UP Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952 - Section
14 - Bhoodan Yagna Committee (BYC) -
Power of BYC to distribute the land to
landless
agricultural
labours
-
Permissibility - Committee formed in
1953 and distribution of land made in
1978, this distribution was made beyond
period of three years - Validity challenged
- Held, the Bhoodan Committee, Kheri did
not have power to distribute the land
amongst the respondents in the 1978 and,
it was the Collector, who could have
distributed the land if there was no
notification issued under Section 4 of the
Act, 1927 to constitute the land as
'reserved forest' - Held further, the
respondents
did
not
become
the
Bhumidhars on the basis of the alleged
patta/lease in their favour. (Para 36 and
37)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. St. of U.P. Versus Mahant Avaidh Nath; AIR
1977 All 192
2. St. of U.P. Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation &
ors.; (1996) 5 SCC 194
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Sone Lal & Ors.
839
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1 . This is the second round before
this Court after the Supreme Court
remanded the above writ petitions vide
judgment and order dated 23.09.2010
setting-aside the judgment and order
dated 04.02.1998 passed by this Court.

2. Challenge, in this bunch of writ
petitions,
is
to
the
orders
dated
28.02.1980
passed
by
the
Forest
Settlement Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri in
Case No.85 of 1979 under Section 6/9 of
The Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short
"Act, 1927") and dated 10.07.1980 passed
by the District Judge, Kheri in Civil
Misc. Appeal No.23 of 1980 whereby the
petitioners' objection, in respect of land
bearing Plot No.75-H, situated in Village
Khairati
Purwa,
Pargana
Ferozabad,
Tehsil Nighasan, District Kheri, having
an area of 50 Acres, was accepted and, it
was directed to exclude the said area
from the Notification dated 18.10.1952,
as amended on 27.04.1960, declaring
1,343.87 Acres, including the land,
bearing Plot No.75-H as ''reserved forest'.

3. The facts, which are necessary for
deciding this bunch of writ petitions, are
stated briefly hereunder:-

I. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(for short "Act, 1950") came into force in
the State of Uttar Pradesh on 26.01.1951;

II. The State Government issued
Notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1927, declaring an area of 1,343.87
Acres, situated in Village Khairati Purwa,
Pargana Ferozabad, Tehsil Nighasan,
District Kheri, including the land bearing
Plot No.75-H, having an area of 50 Ares
as ''reserved forest'; and

III. The said notification was
amended on 27.04.1960 and one Mr.
Shyam
Lal,
Deputy
Collector
was
appointed as Forest Settlement Officer for
District Kheri in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 17 of the Act, 1927.
The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow
Division was appointed and empowered to
hear appeals from the orders of the Forest
Settlement Officer. The boundaries of the
reserved forest so declared was also
demarcated.

4. One Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur
Singh was the recorded Sirdar in respect of
50 Acres land of Plot No. 75-H in Khatauni
of 1361 Fasali.

5. It is said that the said land was
recorded
as
Bhumidhari
of
Kunwar
Shivendra Bahadur Singh, who donated
this land to Bhoodan Committee, Kheri and
Tehsildar Nighasan passed order dated
20.10.1957, directing mutation of the said
land in favour of Bhoodan Committee,
Kheri.

6. The respondents claimed that they
had been given this land by the Bhoodan
Committee, Kheri in the year 1978 and,
vide order dated 30.06.1978, the Tehsildar
Nighasan had directed for recording the
name of the respondents in place of
Bhoodan Committee.

7. On the date, when the Notification
dated
27.04.1960
was
issued,
the
respondents had no right, title or interest
over land in question inasmuch, as
allegedly, they had been given the land in
the year 1978 by the Bhoodan Committee,
which was donated by Kunwar Shivendra
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bahadur Singh. After their names came to
be recorded in the revenue record, they
filed objections belatedly on 14.06.1979
against the Notification dated 27.04.1960.
The respondents claimed to be Sirdar of the
land in dispute and, claimed that the land
was in their cultivatory possession.

8. Written reply, on behalf of the
State, was filed on 21.08.1979 to the
objections of the respondents, stating
therein that the entire land in Village
Khairati Purwa was forest land and, that
notification issued under Section 4 of the
Act, 1927 was legal and valid. The Forest
Settlement Officer, on the basis of the
pleadings, framed the following issues for
decision:-

a. whether the objectors were
Sirdars of the land in dispute on the basis of
patta/lease
granted
by
the
Bhoodan
Committee and, was it their holding?

b. whether Bhoodan Committee
was competent to grant patta/lease and,
whether the alleged patta/lease was valid
one?

c. whether the Notification under
Section 4 of the Act, 1927 in respect of the
land in dispute was illegal and invalid? If
yes, then its effect?

c. whether the objections are
time-barred? If so, what is its effect?

9. The Forest Settlement Officer held
that the land in question was recorded in
the name of Bhoodan Committee vide
order of Tehsildar dated 20.10.1957 and,
thereafter name of Bhoodan Committee
was got registered in 1362-65 Fasali. It was
held that the Notification under Section 4
of the Act, 1927 came to be issued on
27.04.1960. The land was holding of
Bhoodan Committee, which had right to
execute patta/lease in favour of the
respondents. On the basis of the patta/lease
given to the respondents by the Bhoodan
Committee,
the
objectors
became
Bhumidhars of the land in dispute. It was
further held that the land was initially
Bhumidhari land of Kunwar Shivendra
Bahadur Singh and, before the Notification
issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1927, it
was registered in the name of Bhoodan
Committee, therefore, the Notification
under Section 4 of the Act, 1927, in respect
of the said land, was illegal and invalid
and, the said land could not be declared as
''reserved
forest'.
In
respect
of
the
limitation, it was held that since the
Notification under Section 20 of the Act,
1927 was not issued in respect of the
Village
Khairati
Purwa,
therefore,
objections could be treated to be on time.

10. Aggrieved by the said order
passed by the Forest Settlement Officer on
28.02.1980, the State preferred appeals
before the District Judge, Kheri. The
appellate
Authority,
however,
vide
impugned judgment and order dated
10.07.1980 dismissed the said appeals and,
held that the Forest Settlement Officer
rightly held that the claimants/ respondents
had sufficient cause for not preferring their
claims within time fixed under Section 6
and, rightly entertained the objectors' claim.
It was further held that there was no
material to suggest that the land was forest
land or waste land in the year 1960 when
the State issued notification, declaring the
land as reserved forest. It was further held
that till the year 1953-54, the land being
Plot
No.75-H,
area
50
Acres
was
Bhumidhari of Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur
Singh. He was Bhumidhar of the land in
question prior to 01.07.1952 i.e. prior to the
date of vesting of the land under the Act,
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Sone Lal & Ors.
841
1950. This land was recorded in his name
till 1364 Fasali and, vide order dated
20.10.1957
passed
by
the
Tehsildar
Nighasan, name of Bhoodan Committee
was mutated in respect of the said land. It
was further held that though no Bhoodan
declaration by Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur
Singh, donating the land bearing Plot No.
75-H in favour of Bhoodan Committee was
filed, as required under Section 10 of The
Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952
(for short "Act, 1952"), but the order dated
20.10.1957 of the Tehsildar, directing
mutation of the land in favour of Bhoodan
Committee would show that the land in
question had vested in Bhoodan Committee
sometimes in the year 1957 and, it had
become Bhumidhar in respect of the land in
question and, was entitled to grant it to
land-less persons under Section 14 of the
Act, 1952. This land was not forest land or
waste land in the year 1960. The
Notification dated 27.04.1960 issued by the
State Government, declaring the land in
question as reserved forest was ultra-vires
of its jurisdiction, void and ineffective. The
appellate Authority upheld the order passed
by the Forest Settlement Officer.

11. Aggrieved by the said decisions,
passed by the appellate Authority as well as
Forest Settlement Officer, the present writ
petitions have been filed.

12. Initially, this Court vide judgment
and order dated 04.02.1998 had dismissed
the writ petitions, however, the Supreme
Court vide judgment and order dated
23.09.2010 had allowed Civil Appeal Nos.
4608-4616 of 2004 and, remanded the
matter to this Court for fresh decision, in
accordance with law.

13. Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General,
assisted by Mr. H.P. Srivastava and Mr J.P.
Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsels, appearing for the petitionersState, has submitted that the Forest
Settlement Officer as well as the learned
District Judge had condoned the delay of
19 years in preferring the claims by the
respondents under Section 6 of the Act,
1927, which was much beyond the period
of 3 months prescribed under Section 6 of
the
Act,
1927.
No
application
for
condonation of delay was filed by the
respondents along with the claim and,
without recording any cogent and credible
reason of satisfaction, as required under
Section-9, the objections were decided on
merits in favour of the respondents. It has
been further submitted that the belated
claim of the respondents after 19 years
from the date of the Notification under
Section 4 of the Act, 1927 cannot be said to
be within the reasonable period of time. It
has been further submitted that it is well
settled
that
if
an
interested
person
approaches the Court beyond reasonable
period of time with inordinate and
unexplained delay, the claim is to be
rejected as time-barred.

14. It has been further submitted by
Mr.
Madan
Mohan
Pandey,
learned
Additional Advocate General, that the
respondents'
contention
that
the
Notification dated 27.04.1960 was not
within their knowledge, should not have
been accepted inasmuch as it could not be
presumed that the respondents were not
aware of the proceedings of declaring the
land as ''reserved forest' as huge chunk of
land, ad-measuring 1,343.87 Acres, was
notified, including the land bearing Plot
No.75-H by means of Notification dated
27.04.1960 and, the land was entrusted to
the Forest Department for its management.
It has also been submitted by Mr. Pandey
that in 1361 Fasali the land was recorded as
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
''Banjar' and, it was not in cultivatory
possession of Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur
Singh, as held by the Forest Settlement
Officer and, the appellate Authority. The
land, being Banjar land, got vested in the
State on the date of vesting i.e. 01.07.1952.
It has been further submitted that the
finding recorded by the two Authorities
that the land was given to the respondents
on patta/lease by Bhoodan Committee,
Lakhimpur Kheri and, they acquired
Bhumidhari rights over the land and were
in
cultivatory
possession
is
wholly
incorrect and wrong. The respondents
never produced any patta/lease allegedly
executed in their favour by the Bhoodan
Committee, Lakhimpur Kheri. It is well
settled proposition of law that entries, in
revenue record, do not confer ownership
and title over the land. Merely on the basis
of revenue entries of the year 1978, the two
authorities have accepted the claims of the
respondents. After coming into force the
provisions of Act, 1950, the land, which
was recorded as ''Banjar' got vested in the
State on 01.07.1952 and, thereafter neither
Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur Singh nor
Bhoodan Committee had any right for
transferring this land in favour of the
respondents as they had no right, title or
interest over the land. It has been further
submitted that by means of Notification
dated 11.10.1952 issued under Section 117
of the Act, 1950, the Banjar land got vested
in the Gaon-Sabha and, therefore, Bhoodan
Committee did not have any right over the
land to grant patta/lease in favour of the
respondents and, any revenue entry made in
favour of the respondents, would not confer
any right in their favour.

15. By Notification dated 27.04.1960
issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1927 in
respect of the land, ad-measuring 1,343.87
Acres, including the land in dispute,
became the ''reserved forest land' and two
authorities have grossly erred in not taking
into
account
the
Notification
dated
11.10.1952.

16. Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur
Singh's Bhumidhari right might be higher
right than the Sirdar/Asami, but still he was
a tenure holder under the State, which was
proprietor of the land in the areas in which
the Act, 1950 was applied with effect from
01.07.1952. The Banjar land is the land
under the management by the Gaon-Sabha
and, it is State land and, therefore,
declaration of the land as reserved forest by
issuing Notification under Section 4 of the
Act, 1927 cannot be held to be illegal or
invalid.

17. It has been further submitted that
the
finding
recorded
by
the
Forest
Settlement Officer that since Notification
under Section 20 of the Act, 1927 was not
issued in respect of the Village Khairati
Purwa, the claim filed by the respondents
under Section-6 of the Act, 1927 would be
held to be within time is wholly incorrect
and against the decisions in several cases.

18. The Forest Settlement Officer had
ignored the provisions of Section-5 of the
Act, 1927 which bars accrual of any right
after issuance of notification under Section4 of the Act, 1927 and, wrongly allowed
the claims of the respondents on account of
absence of Notification under Section-20 of
the Act, 1927. It has been further submitted
that in the Khatauni of 1360 Fasali, the land
is mentioned as ''Jangle Jhadi' and, thus, it
was already a forest land when the
Notification
dated
27.04.1960
under
Section-4 of the Act, 1927 was issued by
the
Government,
declaring
the
land,
including the land in dispute, as ''reserved
forest'.
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Sone Lal & Ors.
843

19. It has been further submitted by
the learned Additional Advocate General
that in respect of the same land, this Court
vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2006
allowed Writ Petition No.4213 (M/S) of
1982 and, held that since Notification dated
27.04.1960 issued under Section-4 (1)(C)
of the Act, 1927 had not been challenged
by any authority, the respondents could not
be held to be in authorized occupation of
the land in question and, therefore, the
proceedings for ejectment were perfectly
legal.

20. On the other hand, Dr. R.K.
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, has submitted that in the
present petitions, challenge has been made
to the order passed by the Forest Settlement
Officer, Kheri as well as to the order passed
by the appellate Authority/District Judge
and, therefore, the writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India are
not maintainable and, the same are liable to
be dismissed.

21. It is submitted that Kunwar
Shivendra Bahadur Singh was recorded as
Bhumidhar of land bearing Plot No. 75-H
situated in Village Khairati Purwa and, he
donated
the
said
land
to
Bhoodan
Committee, Kheri and Bhoodan Committee
came to be recorded in the revenue record
on the basis of the order dated 20.04.1957
passed by the Tehsildar Nighasan. The Act,
1952 has overriding effect and, its
provisions will have effect notwithstanding
anything contained in the Act, 1950, the
Act, 1939 and the Act, 1927 or any law in
the matter of donation of land to Bhoodan
Committee. The Forest Settlement Officer,
the Competent authority under the Act,
1927, after examining the records of the
case and, the provisions of the Act, 1952
had sustained the donation of land to
Bhoodan
Committee
and,
subsequent
allotment of land to the respondents, who
are agricultural labourers.

22. The orders passed by the Forest
Settlement Officer
and the appellate
Authority i.e. the District Judge are well
reasoned orders and, they need not be
interfered with by this Court. It has been
further submitted that the purpose of
limitation is not to destroy the right of a
person, it is the discretion of the Court to
condone the delay, provided delay is bona
fide and, not a device to defeat the right of
other. The Forest Settlement Officer had
given a finding that the objections were
bona fide and did not smack of any
manipulation. In view thereof, there is no
ground to interfere in the well reasoned
finding of the Forest Settlement Officer for
condonation
of
delay
in
filing
the
objections by the respondents. Further, the
Court is required to adjudicate the dispute
and
render
substantial
justice.
The
procedure is only hand-made to render the
substantial justice. It has been further
submitted that this Court in AIR 1977 All
192 (State of U.P. Versus Mahant
Avaidh Nath) has held that right to file
objections could not be extinguished and,
the same could be filed before the
Notification is issued under Section-20 of
the Act, 1927.

23.

Before
adverting
to
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, it would be relevant
to take note of the relevant provisions of
the Act, 1927, Act, 1950, as well as Act,
1952.

24. Section-3 of the Act, 1927
empowers
the
State
Government
to
constitute any forest land or waste land,
which is the property of Government or
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over which the Government has proprietary
rights, or to the whole or any part of the
forest produce of which the Government is
entitled, a reserved forest. The provisions
of Section-3 of the Act, 1927 is extracted
hereunder:-

"3. Power to reserve forests.--
The State Government may constitute any
forest land or waste land or any other
land (not being land for the time being
comprised in any holding or in any
village abadi) which is the property of the
Government
or
over
which
the
Government has proprietary rights, or to
the whole or any part of the forest
produce of which the Government is
entitled, a reserved forest in the manner
hereinafter provided.

Explanation.--The
expression
"holding" shall have the meaning assigned
to it in U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and the
expression ''village abadi' shall have the
meaning assigned to it in the U.P. Village
Abadi Act, 1947."

25. If the State Government decides
to constitute any land as ''reserved forest', it
shall issue a notification in the official
gazette. Section 4 of the Act, 1927 is
extracted hereunder:-

"4.
Notification
by
[State
Government].-- (1) Whenever it has been
decided to constitute any land a reserved
forest, the [State Government] shall issue a
notification in the Official Gazette--

(a) declaring that it has been
decided to constitute such land a reserved
forest;

(b) specifying, as nearly as
possible, the situation and limits of such
land; and

(c)
appointing
an
officer
(hereinafter called "the Forest Settlementofficer") to inquire into and determine the
existence, nature and extent of any rights
alleged to exist in favour of any person in
or over any land comprised within such
limits or in or over any forest-produce, and
to deal with the same as provided in this
Chapter.

Explanation.--For the purpose of
clause (b), it shall be sufficient to describe
the limits of the forest by roads, rivers,
ridges or other well-known or readily
intelligible boundaries.

(2) The officer appointed under
clause
(c)
of
sub-section
(1)
shall
ordinarily be a person not holding any
forest-office
except
that
of
Forest
Settlement-officer.

(3) Nothing in this section shall
prevent the [State Government] from
appointing any number of officers not
exceeding three, not more than one of
whom shall be a person holding any forestoffice except as aforesaid, to perform the
duties of a Forest Settlement-officer under
this Act."

26. Section-5 of the Act, 1927
provides that after issuance of notification
under section 4, no right shall be acquired
in or over the land comprised in such
notification, except by succession or under
a grant or a contract with the Government.
It, however, prohibits fresh clearing for
cultivation or for any other purpose except
in accordance with such rules as may be
made by the State Government in this
behalf.

27. One of the issues, which would be
required to be considered, is that whether
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Sone Lal & Ors.
845
the Bhoodan Committee, in whose name
the land in dispute got mutated in the year
1957, could have any right to grant
patta/lease over the land in favour of the
respondents
after
issuance
of
the
Notification Under Section-4 of the Act,
1927.

28. Sections-4, 6, 8 and 13 of the Act,
1950 are regarding vesting of estates in
State and consequence of vesting, which
are extracted hereunder:-

Section 4-Vesting of estates in
the State. - (1) As soon as may be after the
commencement of this Act, the State
Government may, by notification, declare
that, as from a [date] to be specified, all
estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest
in the State and as from the beginning of
the date so specified (hereinafter called the
date of vesting), all such estates shall stand
transferred
to
and
vest,
except
as
hereinafter provided, in the State free from
all encumbrances.

(2) It shall be lawful for the State
Government, if it so considers necessary, to
issue, from time to time, the notification
referred to in sub-section (1) in respect
only of such area or areas as may be
specified
and
all
the
provisions
of
subsection (1) shall be applicable to and in
the case of every such notification.

Section 6- Consequences of the
vesting of an estate in the State. - When
the notification under Section 4 has been
published
in
the
Gazette,
then,
notwithstanding anything contained in any
contract or document or in any other law
for the time being in force and save as
otherwise provided in this Act, the
consequences as hereinafter set forth shall,
from the beginning of the date of vesting,
ensure in the area to which the notification
relates, namely :

(a) all rights, title and interest of
all the intermediaries-

(i) in every estate in such area
including land (cultivable or barren),
grove-land, forests whether within or
outside village boundaries trees (other than
trees in village abadi, holding or grove),
fisheries, [* * *], tanks, ponds, waterchannels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites,
hats, bazars and melas (other than hats,
bazars and melas held upon land to which
Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 18 apply; and

(ii) in all sub-soil in such
estates including rights, if any, in mines
and minerals, whether being worked or
not;

shall cease and be vested in the
State of Uttar Pradesh free from all
encumbrances;

(b) all grants and confirmations
of title of or to land in any estate so
acquired, or of or to any right or privilege
in respect of such land or its land revenue
shall, whether liable to resumption or not,
determine;

(c) (i) all rents, cesses, local rates
and sayar in respect of any estate or
holding therein for any period after the
date of vesting and which, but for the
acquisition would be payable to an
intermediary, shall vest in and be payable
to the State Government and not to the
intermediary and any payment made in
contravention of this clause shall not be
valid discharge of the person liable to pay
the same;
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) where under an agreement or
contract made before the date of vesting
any rent, cess, local rate or sayar for any
period after the said date has been paid to
or
compounded
or
released
by
an
intermediary
the
same
shall,
notwithstanding the agreement or the
contract, be re-coverable by the State
Government from the intermediary and
may without prejudice to any other mode of
recovery, be realized by deducting the
amount from the compensation money
payable
to
such
intermediary
under
Chapter III;

(d) all arrears of revenue, cesses
or other dues in respect of any estate so
acquired and due from the intermediary [or
an arrear on account of tax on agricultural
income
assessed
under
the
U.P.
Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948] (U.P.
Act III of 1949) for any period prior to the
date of vesting shall continue to be
recoverable from such intermediary and
may, without prejudice to any other mode
of recovery, be realized by deducting the
amount from the compensation money
payable
to
such
intermediary
under
Chapter III;

(e) all amounts ordered to be
paid by an intermediary to the State
Government under Sections 27 and 28 of
the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934
(U.P. Act XXV of 1934) and all amounts
due
from
him
under
the
Land
Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (U.P. Act
XIX of 1883), or the Agricultural Loans,
Act, 1884 (U.P. Act XIX of 1884), shall
notwithstanding any thing contained in
the
said
enactments,
become
due
forthwith and may, without prejudice to
any other mode of recovery provided
therefor, be realized by deducting the
amount from the compensation money
payable to such intermediary under
Chapter III;

(f)
the
interest
of
the
intermediary so acquired in any estate
shall not be liable to attachment or sale
in execution of any decree or other
process of any Court, Civil or Revenue
and any attachment existing at the date of
vesting or any order for attachment
passed before such date shall, subject to
the provisions of Section 73 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of
1882), cease to be in force;

(g)(i)
every
mortgage
with
possession existing on any estate or part
of an estate on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting shall, to the
extent of the amount secured on such
estate or part, be deemed, without
prejudice to the rights of the State
Government under Section 4, to have
been substituted by a simple mortgage;

(ii)
notwithstanding
anything
contained in the mortgage deed or any
other agreement, the amount declared due
on a simple mortgage substituted under
sub-clause (i) shall carry such rate of
interest and from such date as may be
prescribed;

(h)
no
claim
or
liability
enforceable or incurred before the date of
vesting by or against suc As to whether h
intermediary for any money, which is
charged on or is secured by mortgage of
such estate or part thereof shall, except as
provided in Section 73 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), be
enforceable against his interest in the estate;

(i) all suits and proceedings of
the nature to be prescribed pending in any
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Sone Lal & Ors.
847
Court at the date of vesting and all
proceedings upon any decree or order
passed in any such suit or proceeding
previous to the date of vesting shall be
stayed;

(j) all mahals and their subdivisions existing on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting and all
engagements for the payment of land
revenue or rent by a proprietor, underproprietor, sub-proprietor, co-sharer or
lambardar as such shall determine and
cease to be in force.

Section 8-Contract entered into
after August 8, 1946, to become void from
the date of vesting. - Any contract for
grazing or gathering of produce from land
or the collection of forest produce or fish
from any forest or fisheries entered As to
whether into after the eighth day of August,
1946, between an intermediary and any
other person in respect of any private
forest, fisheries or land lying in such estate
shall become void with effect from the date
of vesting.

Section 13- Estate in possession
of a thekedar. - (1) Subject to the
provisions of Section 12 and sub-section
(2) of this section a thekedar of an estate or
share therein shall, with effect from the
date of vesting, cease to have any right to
hold or possess as such any land in such
estate.

29. The Act, 1952, which received the
assent of the President on 27.02.1953 and,
was made applicable in the State of Uttar
Pradesh from the date of its publication i.e.
05.03.1953, is to facilitate donation and
settlement of lands in connection with the
Bhoodan Yagna initiated by Sri Acharaya
Vinoba Bhave. Section-3 of the Act, 1952
provides for establishment of a Bhoodan
Yagna Committee for the State having
perpetual succession which shall be a body
corporate vested with the capacity of suing
and being sued in its corporate names
acquiring,
holding,
administering
and
transferring property, both movable and
immovable and of entering into contracts.

30. Section-7 of the Act, 1952
provides that it shall be duty of the
committee to administer all lands vested in
it for the benefit of the Bhoodan Yagna.

31. Section-8 of the Act, 1952
provides that Notwithstanding anything
contained in any law for the time being in
force, any person, being the owner of land,
may donate and grant such land to the
"Bhoodan Yagna" by a declaration in
writing in that behalf in the manner
prescribed and, this declaration is required
to be filed with the Tehsildar as soon as it
is made.

32. Section-10 of the Act, 1952 again
provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950, U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939 or any other law
relating to land tenure as may be
applicable, an owner shall be competent for
purposes of this Act to donate the land held
by him as such to the Bhoodan Yagna.

33. Section-11 of the Act, 1952
provides that any person whose interests
are affected by the Bhoodan declaration
made under section-8 may within thirty
days of the publication of the declaration,
file objections on the same before the
Tehsildar. If the Tehsildar confirms the
Bhoodan declaration then notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, all the rights, title and
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest of the owner in such land shall
stand transferred to and vest in the
Bhoodan Committee for purposes of the
Bhoodan Yagna.

34. Section-12 of the Act, 1952 provides
that certain lands cannot be donated by the
owner as defined in the said sections. Section12 of the Act, 1952 is extracted hereunder:-

"12.
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any law an owner shall not, for
purposes of this Act, be entitled to donate the
land falling in any of the following classes,
namely:-

(a) lands which on the date of
donation are recorded or by usage treated as
common pasture lands, cremation or burial
grounds, tank, pathway or threshing floor; and

(b) land in which the interest of the
owner is limited to the life-time; and

(c) such other land as the State
Government may by notification in the Gazette
specify.

35. Section-14 of the Act, 1952
empowers to Bhoodan Committee to grant
lands which have vested in it to the landless
agricultural labourers and grantee of the lands
acquires in such lands rights and liabilities of a
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1952
provides that if the Committee fails to grant any
land in accordance with sub-section (1) within a
period of three years from the date of vesting or
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan
Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975, whichever is
later, the Collector may himself grant such land
to the landless agricultural labourers in the
manner prescribed and thereupon the grantee
shall acquire the rights and liabilities as
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of
the Act, 1952. Section 14 of the Act, 1952 is
extracted hereunder:-

"14. Grant of land to landless
persons. - [(1)] The Committee or such
other authority or person as the Committee
with the approval of the State Government,
specify either generally or in respect of any
area, may, in the manner prescribed, grant
lands which have vested in it to the
[landless agricultural labourers] and the
grantee of the land shall-

(i) where the land is situate in
any state which has vested in the State
Government under and in accordance with
section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950, acquire in
such land the rights and the liabilities of a
[Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights]
and;

(ii) where it is situate in any other
area, acquire therein such rights and
liabilities and subject to such conditions,
restrictions and limitations as may be
prescribed and they shall have effect, any
law to the contrary notwithstanding.

[(2) Where the committee or
other authority or person as aforesaid fails
to grant any land in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of three years
from the date of vesting of such land in the
committee
or
from
the
date
of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975,
whichever is later, the Collector may
himself grant such land to the landless
agricultural labourers in the manner
prescribed, and thereupon the grantee shall
acquire the rights and liabilities mentioned
in sub-section (1) as if the grant were made
by the committee itself.

(3) [* * *]
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Sone Lal & Ors.
849

(4) In making grant of land under
this section, the committee or other
authority or person as aforesaid or the
Collector, as the case may be, shall observe
the following principles:

(a) At least fifty per cent of the
land available for grant shall be granted to
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and persons belonging to
the
Kol,
Pathari,
Khairwar,
Baiga,
Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes and
such other tribes as the State Government
on the recommendation of the Committee
may notify in this behalf;

(b) The land situate in one village
shall, as far as possible, be granted to
persons residing in that very village.

Explanation. - For the purposes
of this section; the expression "land-less
agricultural labourer" means a person
whose main source of livelihood is
agricultural labour or cultivation and who
at the relevant time either holds no land or
holds land not exceeding 0.40468564
hectares (one acre) in Uttar Pradesh as a
bhumidhar, [* * *] asami or Government
lessee."

36. The case of the respondents is that
the land in dispute was donated by Kunwar
Shivendra Bahadur Singh in favour of
Bhoodan Committee, Kheri in the year
1957. The Committee was, therefore,
required to have distributed this land in
favour of landless agricultural labourers
within 3 years as provided under subsection (2) of the Act, 1939. According to
the respondents, they were distributed the
land by the Bhoodan Committee, Kheri in
the year 1978. Considering the provisions
of sub-section (2) of Section-14 of the Act,
1939, the Bhoodan Committee, Kheri did
not have power to distribute the land
amongst the respondents in the 1978 and, it
was the Collector, who could have
distributed the land if there was no
notification issued under Section-4 of the
Act, 1927 to constitute the land as
''reserved forest. It is important to take note
of the fact that Bhoodan Committee never
filed any objection to the notification
issued under Section-4 of the Act, 1927 in
respect of the land in question. The
respondents, after they got their names
mutated in the year 1978-79, came before
the Forest Settlement Officer and filed
objections in the year 1979. Once, it is held
that the Bhoodan Committee did not have
any right, title or interest over the land
when allegedly the patta/lease were granted
in favour of the respondents and, their
objections could not have been entertained.

37. The respondents, on the basis of
the alleged patta/lease in their favour, did
not become the Bhumidhars and, even if it
is assumed that the patta/lease, though no
such patta/lease has been produced by
them, was valid on the basis of which their
names got mutated in the revenue record,
they became only tenure holders and,
proprietary rights in the lands vested in the
State. The Supreme Court in (1996) 5 SCC
194 (State of U.P. Vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation and others) has held that a
person, who was holding the land as Sirdar,
was not vested with proprietary rights
under the Act, 1950. He was a tenureholder and the proprietary rights vested
with the State. Paragraphs- 6, 7 and 8 of
State of U.P. Vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation and others (supra), which are
relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

"6. This Court in Mahendra Lal
Jaini Vs. State of U.P. dealt with an
identical question. Mahendra Lal Jaini, in
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, contended before this
Court that he being a Bhumidhar in
possession, the provisions of (the Forest
Act, 1927) would not apply to the said land.
Repelling the contention this Court held
that though Bhumidhars have higher rights
than Sirdars and Asamis, they were still
tenure-holders under the State which was
proprietor of the land in the areas to which
the Abolition Act applied. It was further
held that, even if it was presumed that the
petitioner Mahendra Lal Jaini was a
Bhumidhar, he could not claim to be the
proprietor of the land. It was held that the
provisions of the Act would be applicable
to the land in dispute. It would be useful to
reproduce the relevant part from the
judgment of this Court in Mahendra Lals
case :