# Umesh Chandra v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Aligarh and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8056 of 1981
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-chandra-v-joint-director-of-consolidation-aligarh-and-another-40471
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-S.-134 (1) Acquisition
of Bhumidhari Rights-petitioner being
Sirdar on 9.6.92 applied for acquisition
of Bhumidhari Rights, by depositing 10
time rent-before the grant of certificateexempted registered sale deed-whether
is the execution of sale deed valid? held-
'yes' in view of the provision of S-137 (1)
the grant of certificates relates back date
of application.

Held: Para 10 and 12

In view of the aforesaid legal position it
is clear that Smt. Ram Pyari acquired
bhumidhari rights on the date i.e.
9.6.1972 when she made application
under Section 134 (1) of the Act and
deposited the requisite amount. The
view taken by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation
that
since
declaration
under Section 137 (1) was granted
subsequent to the execution of the sale
deed and she was only a sirdar on the
date of execution of the deed is illegal
and cannot be sustained.

Thus the view taken by this court stands
overruled by Hon. Apex court. Since the
certificate will have retrospective effect
and would relate back to the application,
the death of tenure holder between the
period
of
making
application
and
issuance of certificate will have no effect
and such a tenure holder would be
deemed to have required bhumidhar
rights on the date of making application,
even though he may have died before
grant of certificate.
Case law discussed:
2000 (91) R.D. 277
1978 R.D. 183

(Delivered Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)

## Text

448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8056 of 1981

Umesh Chandra

...Petitioner
Versus
Joint Director of Consolidation, Aligarh
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.L. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.P. Goyal
Sri Prem Babu Verma
Sri Sudhir Kumar
S.C.

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-S.-134 (1) Acquisition
of Bhumidhari Rights-petitioner being
Sirdar on 9.6.92 applied for acquisition
of Bhumidhari Rights, by depositing 10
time rent-before the grant of certificateexempted registered sale deed-whether
is the execution of sale deed valid? held-
'yes' in view of the provision of S-137 (1)
the grant of certificates relates back date
of application.

Held: Para 10 and 12

In view of the aforesaid legal position it
is clear that Smt. Ram Pyari acquired
bhumidhari rights on the date i.e.
9.6.1972 when she made application
under Section 134 (1) of the Act and
deposited the requisite amount. The
view taken by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation
that
since
declaration
under Section 137 (1) was granted
subsequent to the execution of the sale
deed and she was only a sirdar on the
date of execution of the deed is illegal
and cannot be sustained.

Thus the view taken by this court stands
overruled by Hon. Apex court. Since the
certificate will have retrospective effect
and would relate back to the application,
the death of tenure holder between the
period
of
making
application
and
issuance of certificate will have no effect
and such a tenure holder would be
deemed to have required bhumidhar
rights on the date of making application,
even though he may have died before
grant of certificate.
Case law discussed:
2000 (91) R.D. 277
1978 R.D. 183

(Delivered Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.L. Yadav learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem
Babu
Verma
appearing
for
the
respondents.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case
are that during the consolidation operation
the petitioner filed objection under
Section 9 -A (2) of the Act claiming
bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute
on the basis of registered sale deed dated
9.6.1972 alleged to have been executed by
Smt Ram Pyari the recorded tenure holder
in his favour. The respondent no. 3 also
filed objection claiming rights as legal
heirs of Smt. Ram Pyari.

3. Smt. Ram Pyari who was
recorded as sirdar over the land in dispute
made an application on 9.6.1972 under
section 134 of the Act for grant of
bhumidhari sanad and deposited ten times
of the land revenue on the same day as
required by the said Section. She also
executed a registered sale deed in favour
of petitioner on the same date i.e.
9.6.1972. Smt Ram Pyari died on
17.6.1972 whereas bhumidhari sanad was
granted on 24.6.1972.
2 All] Umesh Chandra V. Joint Director of Consolidation, Aligarh and another
 449

4. Respondent no. 3 filed an
application under Section 137 -A of the
Act for cancellation of bhumidhari sanad
on the ground since Ram Pyari died on
17.6.1972 as such sanad could not have
issued in name of a dead person. The
application was allowed on 15.7.1973
however an appeal against the said order
filed before the Commissioner was abated
due to consolidation operation.

5. Consolidation Officer vide order
dated 27.2.1976 allowed the claim of the
petitioner in respect of disputed plot nos.
69, 70 and 71 and directed that his name
be entered as bhumdhar. Feeling
aggrieved respondent no. 3 filed an appeal
which was allowed by the Settlement
Officer Consolidation vide order dated
26.12.1976. The revision filed by the
petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation on 26.3.1981.

6.

The
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation dismissed the objection of
the petitioner on the ground that since
Smt. Ram Pyari was dead before grant of
sanad and no bhumidhri sanad could be
issued in the name of a dead person as
such she was only a sirdar on the date of
execution of sale deed and thus had no
right to transfer the property.

7. The question which arises for
adjudication is whether the bhumidhari
sanad issued under Section 134 (1) of the
act would relate back to the date of
making application or would be effective
from the date it had been issued.

Section 134 and 137 of the Act as it
stood at the relevant time read as under,

"Section
134.
Acquisition
of
bhumidhari rights by a sirdar- (1) If a
sirdar belonging to the class mentioned in
clause (a) of Section 131 pays or offers to
pay to the credit of the State Government
an amount equal to ten times the land
revenue payable or deemed to be payable
on the date of application for the land for
which he is the sirdar, he shall, upon an
application duly made in that behalf to an
Assistant Collector, be entitled, with effect
from the date on which the amount has
been deposited, to a declaration that he
has acquired the rights mentioned in
Section 137 in respect of such land:

Provided that the rights to pay or
offer to pay the amount aforementioned
shall cease on the expiry of three months
from the date to be notified by the State
Government.
Explanation 1._ In this sub-section 'land'
includes shares in land.
Explanation II.- For the purpose of this
section the land revenue payable shall-

(a) in respect of land referred to in the
proviso to clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of Section 246 be an amount
arrived at after all the increases have
been given effect to; and
(b) in respect of land to which the proviso
to Section 247 applies, be an amount
determined at hereditary rates under
that section.
(c) The amount referred to in sub-section
(1) may be paid in cash or, if the State
Government so prescribes, in form of
bonds or otherwise."

 Section 137. Grant of certificate-
(1) If the application has been duly made
and the Assistant Collector is satisfied
that the applicant is entitled to the
declaration mentioned in Section 134, he
shall grant a certificate to that effect.
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
(2) Upon the grant of the certificate,
under sub section (1), the sirdar shall,
from the date on which the amount
referred to in sub section (1) of Section
134 has been deposited,
a)
become and be deemed to be a
bhumidhar of the holding or the share in
respect of which the certificate has been
granted, and
b)
be liable for payment of such
reduced amount on account of land
revenue for the holding or his share
therein, as the case may be, one-half of
the amount of land revenue payable or
deemed to be payable by him therefore
on date of application:

Provided further that in the cases referred
to in Explanation II of Section 134 the
sirdar shall, during the period a reduced
amount is payable in accordance with
Section 246 or 247, be liable for payment
of one-half of the amount payable from
time to time.
Explanation:- For the purposes of
clause (b) the land revenue payable by a
sirdar on the date aforesaid shall, where
it exceeds an amount double that
computed
at
the
hereditary
rates
applicable, be deemed to be equal to such
amount.
(2-A)
Where the amount referred
to in sub-section (1) of Section 134 is
deposited on a date other than the first
day of the agricultural year, the land
revenue payable by the bhumidhar under
clause (b) of sub-section (2) for the
remainder of the agricultural year in
which the amount is deposited shall be
determined in such manner as may be
prescribed".

8. A plain reading of Section 134
indicates that on an application being
made and deposit of ten times of land
revenue a sirdar becomes entitled to the
declaration of having acquired the rights
mentioned in Section 137 i.e. bhumidhari
right, with effect from the date the
amount has been deposited. Similarly,
Section 137 (2) provides that upon the
grant of certificate under Sub-Section -1,
the sirdar shall be deemed to be
bhumidhar from the date on which
amount referred to in Section 134 (1) has
been deposited.

9. A conjoint reading of the two
provision shows that point of time when
sirdar acquires bhiumidhari right has been
fixed by the legislature as being the day
when amount required by Section 134 (1)
is deposited by him. The date on which
the declaration under Section 137 is made
is immaterial as the statute prescribes that
declaration under Section 137 (1) will
have retrospective effect and would relate
back to the date of deposit made under
Section 134 (1) of the Act. The view finds
support from the decision of the Hon.
Apex Court in the case of Dev Narain
Vs. Ram Saran, 2000 (91) RD 277.

10. In view of the aforesaid legal
position it is clear that Smt. Ram Pyari
acquired bhumidhari rights on the date i.e.
9.6.1972 when she made application
under Section 134 (1) of the Act and
deposited the requisite amount. The view
taken
by
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation that since declaration under
Section 137 (1) was granted subsequent to
the execution of the sale deed and she was
only a sirdar on the date of execution of
the deed is illegal and cannot be
sustained.

11.

Other
ground
on
which
Settlement Officer Consolidation and
2 All] Umesh Chandra V. Joint Director of Consolidation, Aligarh and another
 451
Deputy Director of Consolidation have
non suited the petitioner is that since Smt.
Ram Pyari was dead on the date of grant
of declaration under Section 137 (1) of
the Act no certificate could have issued in
the name of the a dead person. The
Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of
Consolidation have relied upon the
decision of this court. The view taken by
this court in the case of Raghunanadan
Singh and another Vs. Vashwant Singh
1978 RD 183 was that in case an
applicant dies before the order for grant of
certificate is passed, such an order is
nullify and no rights or benefits could
accrue on its basis. However, Hon.
Supreme Court in the case of Dev
Nandan Vs. Ram Saran (supra) has
considered the decision of this court and
has taken contrary view. It has been
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
follows;

In our opinion, the said decisions run
counter to the plain language and
meaning of Section 134 and 137 as they
stood at the relevant point of time. When
a certificate is issued under Section 137,
it in fact recognizes the position as on the
date when the application was made and
the payment contemplated under Section
134 (1) was deposited. The certificate, in
other words, will have a retrospective
effect and would relate back to the date of
the application. There was nothing to
prevent the revenue authorities from
allowing the application filed under
Section 134 (1) on the day when it was
presented. The underlying intention of
the legislature, therefore, clearly is that
as and when the said application is
accepted and order is passed under
Section 137, it must relate back to the
date when the application was filed. Such
a situation is not unknown to law. Mr.
Prem Prasad Juneja, learned counsel for
the appellants, as an analogy, has drawn
our attention to Order 22 Rule 6, C.P.C.
which provides that if any of the parties to
a suit dies after hearing has been
completed and before the judgment is
pronounced, the suit would not abate.
The doctrine of relation back has been
incorporated in Sections 134 and 137 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act.

12. Thus the view taken by this
court stands overruled by Hon. Apex
court. Since the certificate will have
retrospective effect and would relate back
to the application, the death of tenure
holder between the period of making
application and issuance of certificate will
have no effect and such a tenure holder
would be deemed to have required
bhumidhar rights on the date of making
application, even though he may have
died before grant of certificate.

13. Thus the second ground for
rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation and
Deputy Director of Consolidation also
cannot be sustained.

14. In view of the aforesaid
discussions the claim of the petitioner on
the basis of sale deed executed by Smt.
Ram pyari was liable to be allowed and
was rightly allowed by the Consolidation
Officer. The impugned judgment of the
Settlement Officer Consolidation and
Deputy Director of Consolidation are
unsustainable and are hereby quashed.
The
writ
petition
stands
allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 435 of 1997

Sobran Singh

...Appellant
Versus
State

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vinay Saran
Amicus Curiae

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

U.P. Prisoners (Release on Probation)
Act
readwith
Jail
Manual-Para-198offence under Section-302/307 I.P.C.
Criminal
Appeal-premature
releaseappellant found guilty u/s 302 was
punished with rigorous imprisonment for
10 yrs. With on year R.I. for offence
under section 307- crime committed by
accused with the result of misery and
object poverty, because of deprivation
rather then any depravity- the accused
lost his mental balance wen castigated
by his wife for stealing words from
jungle for buying food for his familyunder these circumstances-the Principal
Secretary
(Home)
and
the
D.I.G.P.
(Provision) directed to consider the case
of appellant for pre mature release on
commutation of sentence-release not to
be rejected simply because the appellant
has been found guilty for murder of five
persons including his wife-held-state
itself could be faulted for this situation in
not providing food and livelihood to its
poorest citizens.

Held: Para 24

In view of this we direct that the
Principal Secretary (Home), and the
Director General of Police (Prisons),
Govt.
of
U.P.
may
consider
in
a
sympathetic manner the case of the
appellant for releasing him under the
U.P. Prisoners (Release on Probation)
Act or under paragraph 198 of the Jail
Manual, or other applicable provisions
whenever the appellant becomes eligible
for
consideration
of
his
case
for
premature release or commutation of the
sentence, after he has undergone the
requisite period of imprisonment. The
release of the appellant should not be
rejected simply because the appellant
has been found guilty for the murders of
five persons including his wife, little
child, two nephews, his sister-in-law and
for
causing
injuries to
his brother
Mahendra Singh and his brother-in-law
Chhatrapal Singh and thereafter to his
own person. The act of the accused
appears to be the act of a person who
has lost his mental balance as a result of
extreme poverty and hunger and in a
certain sense the State itself could be
faulted for this situation, because of its
failure to fulfil its obligation under
Article
21
of
the
Constitution
of
providing food and livelihood to its
poorest citizens.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been
filed by the appellant Sobaran Singh from
jail. It arises from a judgment dated
30.8.97 passed by the Sessions judge,
Lalitpur in S.T. No. 26 of 1988 convicting
and
sentencing
the
appellant
to
imprisonment for life under section 302
IPC, to rigorous imprisonment for 10
years under Section 307 IPC, and to
rigorous imprisonment for one year under
section 309 IPC. The sentences were to
run concurrently.

2. We have heard Sri Vinay Saran,
Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the