# GRAM SABHA, BESAHANI v. RAM RAJ SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 856
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-01-31
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 719 of 1966
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, V. Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gram-sabha-besahani-v-ram-raj-singh-ors-4250
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

U.P. Zamindari Aholi1ion and Lc;ncl Reform< Act. 1950 (1 of 1951).
s. 212A (6) and (7)--Suh-Di\·i{ionnl Officer ordering tjtctment under s.
212A (6) without a1vardi111: co111pensation-Such order ;S invt:.lid and does
not a/tract provi<ions of s. 212A (7) arrd Entry at SI. No. 328 of Appendix
Ill read with Rule 338 of U.P. Zc.1nindari Aholition and Land Refornis
Rules. 1952-Suit challen11in11 .111ch order can be filed under s. 209 of
the Act within si:c years of the date of dispO.\StS!iiOfl,
The respondents filed a suit under s. 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, in respect of five plots of land claiming
to have Sirdari rights in one of them and Bhumidari rights in the other
four.
By this suit they challenged the order of th-' Sub-Divisional Oll!cer
pu~rting to be under s. 2 I 2A ( 6) of the Act dispossessing the plaintiffs
from he aforesaid plots and ~ran1ing p~ession thereof to the appellant
Gram Sabha.
The Revenue c:ourt framed several issues, the second of
\•.:hich was whether the respondent!\ had ever acqui~d Bhurnidha'ri rights
in Jhe four plots in which they claimed tbern. 'fhis issue was referred to
lhe Civil Court which held thal. as no suit was filed under s. 212A (7)
of the Act, within six month) ol the dispossession as required by the
Entry at SI. No. 328 of Appendix III read with Rule 338 of the U.P.
Zamindari and Land Reforms Rules 1952. !he
respondents'
rights
as
Rhumidars, if any, stood extinguished.
On receipt of this
decision
oe
issue No. 2 the Revenue Court proceeded to determine the claim of the
respondents in respect of Sirdari right"i in one plot and it found lhat these
ri~ts were never acquired.
It therefore dismissed the respondents' suit
w1tho\lt recording any finding on the remaining
issues. The first «ppeal
having failed, the respondents liled a second appe•I:
Therein
the High
Court held that the order of the Suh-Divisional Ma~strate purporting to
be made under s. 212A (6) of the Act was not valid because it did not
direct payment of compen'Sation as laid down in that section, so that the
rights a6 Sirdars and Bhuntidars were not lost hy lhe respondents.
The
appellant came to this Court by special leave.
HELD: fi) The language of s. 212A (6) makes it clear that the order
under that provision must he an order for ejectment
of the person
in
possession of the land on payment of such compensation as mc1.y be prescribed.
In the present case no compensation having been Ordered to be
paid there was no valid order under s. 212A (6). AC'Cordingly the provisions of s. 212A (7) which come into play only when a valid order has
been passed under s. 212A (6). were not auracte<l to the ca;e at all. In such
a case a suit clearly lay against the appellants under s. 209 of the Act and
such a suit could be instituted within six years from the date that unla1,1w·-
ful possession wa5 taken hy the appellant. The present suit was admittedly
brought within that period and was therefore not time-barred.
[859 F,
860 E]
(ii) The suit in respect Of the plot in which Sirdari rights were claimed
by the respondents was dismiiscd hy the trial court on the ground that
such rights had neVcr been acquired.
This was a finding of fact and the
invalidity of the order under s. 212A did not affect it. [d60 FJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II ....
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
GRAM SABHA v. RAJ SINGH (Bhargava, J.)
857
(iii) In respect of the four plots in which Bhumidhari rights were
claimed by the respondents, the case must be remanded to the tnal court
for determination of the undecided issues relating to them. [859 B.C]

## Text

GRAM SABHA, BESAHANI
v.
RAM RAJ SINGH & ORS
January 31, 1968
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
U.P. Zamindari Aholi1ion and Lc;ncl Reform< Act. 1950 (1 of 1951).
s. 212A (6) and (7)--Suh-Di\·i{ionnl Officer ordering tjtctment under s.
212A (6) without a1vardi111: co111pensation-Such order ;S invt:.lid and does
not a/tract provi<ions of s. 212A (7) arrd Entry at SI. No. 328 of Appendix
Ill read with Rule 338 of U.P. Zc.1nindari Aholition and Land Refornis
Rules. 1952-Suit challen11in11 .111ch order can be filed under s. 209 of
the Act within si:c years of the date of dispO.\StS!iiOfl,
The respondents filed a suit under s. 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, in respect of five plots of land claiming
to have Sirdari rights in one of them and Bhumidari rights in the other
four.
By this suit they challenged the order of th-' Sub-Divisional Oll!cer
pu~rting to be under s. 2 I 2A ( 6) of the Act dispossessing the plaintiffs
from he aforesaid plots and ~ran1ing p~ession thereof to the appellant
Gram Sabha.
The Revenue c:ourt framed several issues, the second of
\•.:hich was whether the respondent!\ had ever acqui~d Bhurnidha'ri rights
in Jhe four plots in which they claimed tbern. 'fhis issue was referred to
lhe Civil Court which held thal. as no suit was filed under s. 212A (7)
of the Act, within six month) ol the dispossession as required by the
Entry at SI. No. 328 of Appendix III read with Rule 338 of the U.P.
Zamindari and Land Reforms Rules 1952. !he
respondents'
rights
as
Rhumidars, if any, stood extinguished.
On receipt of this
decision
oe
issue No. 2 the Revenue Court proceeded to determine the claim of the
respondents in respect of Sirdari right"i in one plot and it found lhat these
ri~ts were never acquired.
It therefore dismissed the respondents' suit
w1tho\lt recording any finding on the remaining
issues. The first «ppeal
having failed, the respondents liled a second appe•I:
Therein
the High
Court held that the order of the Suh-Divisional Ma~strate purporting to
be made under s. 212A (6) of the Act was not valid because it did not
direct payment of compen'Sation as laid down in that section, so that the
rights a6 Sirdars and Bhuntidars were not lost hy lhe respondents.
The
appellant came to this Court by special leave.
HELD: fi) The language of s. 212A (6) makes it clear that the order
under that provision must he an order for ejectment
of the person
in
possession of the land on payment of such compensation as mc1.y be prescribed.
In the present case no compensation having been Ordered to be
paid there was no valid order under s. 212A (6). AC'Cordingly the provisions of s. 212A (7) which come into play only when a valid order has
been passed under s. 212A (6). were not auracte<l to the ca;e at all. In such
a case a suit clearly lay against the appellants under s. 209 of the Act and
such a suit could be instituted within six years from the date that unla1,1w·-
ful possession wa5 taken hy the appellant. The present suit was admittedly
brought within that period and was therefore not time-barred.
[859 F,
860 E]
(ii) The suit in respect Of the plot in which Sirdari rights were claimed
by the respondents was dismiiscd hy the trial court on the ground that
such rights had neVcr been acquired.
This was a finding of fact and the
invalidity of the order under s. 212A did not affect it. [d60 FJ
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II ....
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
GRAM SABHA v. RAJ SINGH (Bhargava, J.)
857
(iii) In respect of the four plots in which Bhumidhari rights were
claimed by the respondents, the case must be remanded to the tnal court
for determination of the undecided issues relating to them. [859 B.C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 719 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
February 18, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 4482 of 1961.
S. P. Sinha, E. C. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawala, for the appellant.
B .. C. Misra and H. K. Puri, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bbari:ava, J.
The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit No. 25
of 1957 under section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (No. I of 1951) (hereinafter
referred to as 'the act"), claiming possession of five plots Nos.
729/2, 725/2, 723/2 881/2 and 330/3 on the ground that t)iey
were Sirdars of plot No. 330/3 and Bhmnidars of the remaining
plots.
The main ailegation was that the Chairman of the Gram
Samaj of the village, in which the plots were situated, had, for
certain reasons, filed an application before the
Sμb-Divisional
Officer under section 2 l 2A of the Act for dispossession of the
plaintiffs/respondents on the ground that these lands were of pu'Q,
lie utility and they vested in the Gram Samaj. ,The Sub-Divisional
Officer, purporting to act under s. 212A of the Act, passed ;m
order for dispossession of the plaintiffs/respondents and granted
possession of t.he ll)nds to the appellant, Gram Sabha, Besahani.
That order purporting to be under s. 212A of the Act was challenged as invalid. a:nd, on that basis, possession was claimed from
the ;ippellant under s. 209 of the Act, alleging that the possession
of the appellant was without any legal right.
The suit was defended on behalf of the appeilant on various groun<ls as a result
of which the foJlowing ten issues were framed by the trial Court :-
"Issue No. I : Whether the plaintiffs have right to
file the presen, suit ?
·
2 : Whether plaintiffs are Bhumidars of the plots in
suit except plot No. 330/3 ? If so, its effect?
3 : Whether plaintiffs are Sirdars of plot No. 330/3
in suit ?
·
'
4 : Whether plaintiffs are entitled
to recovery of
H
possession over the plots in suit ?
5 : Whether the, disputed plots are land of public
utiljty and they vest in Gaon Samaj ? If so, its effect'?
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1968] 2 s.c.R.
6 :Whether the suit is barred by s. 23, C.P.C.?
7 : Whether the suit is barred by .cction 11, C.P.C. '?
8 : Whether the disputed plots are culturable land ?
If so, its effect'?
9 : Whether the Court has jurisdiction to the case ?
I 0 : Whether the suit is within time ?"
Of these issues, issue No. 2 was triable exclusively by the Civil
Court and, consequently, the Revenue Court, which was seized
of the suit, referred this issue to the Civil Court for a
finding.
This issue No. 2 arose because of two plca<lmgs put forward on
behalf of the appellant.
One was that the plaintiffs/respondents
had neve1 acquired Bhumidari rights,
and the
other was that
even if it be held that they did possess any Bhumidari rights, those
rights were extinguished when the respondents were dispossessed
in pursuance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer under
s. 2 l 2A of the Ac: and no suit within six months was instituted
by the respondents in accordance withs. 212A(7) of the Act. The
Civil Court, without going into the question whether the respondents had ever acquired Bhumidari rights, decided this issue onlv
on the limited ground that the Bhumidari rights of the respondents
had been extinguished as a result of the order under s. 212A of
the Act. On receipt of this finding from the
Civil Court,
the
Revenue Court proceeded to record its own finding on issue No. 3
in respect of plot No. 330/3 which was the only plot i!l which the
respondents had claimed rights as Sirdars. On this
lssue,
th~
Revenue Court went into the first question only raised on behalf
of the appellant and held that it was not proved that the respondents had ever been admitted to tenancy of this plot of land, so
that they never became Sirdars of this land.
On this view, the
Revenue Court considered it unnecessary to ent~r into the question
whether the Sirdari rights acquired, if any, had been extinguished
as a result of the order under s. 2 l 2A of the Act.
In view of
these findings no decision was recorded on issues Nos. 5-10, and
the suit was dismissed.
That order was upheld by the first appellate Court.
The respondents then filed a second appeal in the
Allahabad Hi~h Court.
The High Court held that the order purporting to be under s. 2 l 2A of the Act was not valid, because it
did not direct payment of compensation as required bys. 212A(6)
of the Act, so that the rights as Sirdars and Bhumidars were not
lost by the respondents.
On this view. the High Court set aside
the dismissal of the suit by the lower Courts and decreed the suit
of the respondents. The appellant has now come up to this Court
against this judgment by special leave.
Two points have been raised in this appeal on behalf of the
appellant before. us.
The first point is that the High Court was
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GRAM SABHA v. RAJ SINGH (Bhargava; J.)
859
wrong in holding that the order passed under s. 2.12A of the Act
by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not valid, and on that basis
decreeing the suit which was clearly" time-barred, as it was not
instituted within six months of the order of ejectment passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer under s. 212A(6) of the Act.
This
ground raised in the appeal has (o be rejected, as we are of the
opinion that the High Court was perfectly correct in holding that
the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer under s. 212A of the Act
was not valid and, consequently, the provisions of s. 212A(7) of
the Act were never
attracted to the present dispute.
Sectio.1
212A(6) & (7) are as follows:-
"212A. ( 6) Where upon the said hearing the Coll~ctor is satisfied that the person was admitted as a
tenure-holder
or grove-holder
of land referred to in
Section 212 or being an intermediary brought such land
under his own cultivation or planted a grove thereon on
or after the eighth day of Augu~t, 1946, he shall pass
an order for ejectment of the person from the land on
payment of such compensation as may be prescribed.
( 7) Where an order for ejectment has been passed
under this section, the party against whom the order has
been passed may institute a suit to establish the right
claimed by it but sub.iect to the results of such suit the
order passed under sub-section ( 4) or ( 6) shall be conclusive."
The language of s. 2 l 2A ( 6) makes it clear that the order under
that provision must be an order for ejectment of the person in
possession of the land on payment of such compensation as may be
prescribed. This means that an order under that provision must
tirst direct payment of compensation to the person in possession
and the direction for ejectment of the person in possession must
be. made effective only thereafter, i.e., after the compensation
has been paid.
The order to be made under this provision of Jaw
must, therefore, contain as a GOndition precedent to eiectment the
payment of compensation. If no payment of compensation
is
ordered, the order made would not be an order under this provision of law.
In the present case, admittedly no compensation was
ordered to be paid in the order purporting to have been passed
under s. 212A(6) of the Act, so that that order cannot be treated
as an order under this provision of Jaw.
The order n'ot being
under this provision, the dispossession of the plaintiffs/ respondents
in pursuance of that order was clearly illegal and the plaintiffs/
respondents had the right to institute the suit for obtaining possession under s. 209 of the Act.
It is true ;hat, in accordance with Entry at SJ. No. 32B of
Appendix 11! read with Rule 338 of the U.I'. Zamindari Abolition
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(196SJ 2 S.CR.
and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules"), a suit to establish a right claimed in accordance wit'1
s. 2!2A(7) of the Act has to be instituted within six months.
Jn
pursuance of that right
claimed,
possession
can
also
be
claimed; and,
if
the suit for establishing the right fails,
the right to obtain possession would also become time-barred.
Consequently, under s. 189(c) of the Act. the person concerned, who fails to institute the suit within this period of limitation in accordance with s. 2 I 2A ( 7) of the Act, would have hi>
int~rest in the land extinguished. This provision,
however, will
only apply to cases where a valid order has been made under s.
2 J 2A of the Act and the person concerned has been dispossessed
in pursuance of su'ch an order.
In the present case, we have held
that the order. in ptmuance of 1vhich the respondents were dispossessed, was not a val id order under s. 2 I 2A ( 6) of the Act and
cannot be held to be an order under that provision of law, so that
the respondents in this case must be deemed to have been deprived
of possession otherwise than in accordance with law. In such
a
case, a suit clearly lay against the app'Cllant under s. 209 of the
Act and such a suit could be instituted within six years from the
date that unlawful possession was taken by the appellant in accordance with Entry at SI. '.'lo. 30 of Appendix Ill read with R. 33~
of the Rules. The present suit was admittedly brought within this
period of limitation and was, therefore, not time-barred. The High
Court was, therefore. right in holding that
the. claim of the
plaintiffs/respondents could not be defeated on this ground.
The second point urged on behalf of the appellant, however,
appears to us to have great force and must be accepted.
It was
urged that, so far as plot No. 330/3 is concerned, there was a
finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. which was upheld by
the first appellate Court, that the
plaintiffs/respondents
never
acquired any tenancy or Sirdari rights in this land, so that, irrespective of the validity of the order under s. 212A(6) Qf...lhe Act.
the plaintiffs/respondents' suit for possession of t11is plot had to be
dismissed.
The High Court, in decreeing the suit, clearly ignored
this aspect. The dismissal of the suit by the trial Court which was
upheld by the first appellate Court in respect of this plot No. 33013
was. therefore, not liable to he set aside even on the view taken
by the High Court and to that extent it has to be upheld.
With regard to the remainin~ four plots in which the respondents were·claiming Bhumidari rights, the error committed by the
High Court is that on the finding recorded by that Court there
should have been an order of remand to determine other questions
raised in the suit in respect of those plots.
One of the questions
raised, which formed part of issue No. 2 and was never decided
by the Civil Court to "hich tliat issue was referred, was that the
A
II
'·
c
I>
F
G
H
•
..
GRAM SABHA v. RAJ SINGH (Bhargava, J.)
861
A
respondents had never acquired Bhumidari rights at all in these
plots. That question should have been remitted for a fresh decision when the High Court held that the Civil Court was wrong
in holding that the Bhumidari rights, if possessed by the respondents in these plots, had been extinguished under s. 189 of the
Act in view of the failure of the respondents to institute the suit
B
within the period of
limitation applicable to
a suit under
s. 212A(7) of.the Act. Further, in respect of these plots, other
issues which were not decided by the Revenue Court also required
decisio'1 before the suit in respect of them could be completely
disposed of. Consequently, it is now necessary to remand the suit
to the trial Court for a fresh trial for the purposes indicated above.
C
As a result, the appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the
High Court is set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs/respondents
will stand dismissed in respect of plot No. 330/3, while it will go
back to the trial Court for a fresh decision in respect of the
remaining four plots in the light of our decision that, in case the
respondents had acquired
Bhumidari rights,
they were not
D
extinguished by any order under section 2J 2A of the Act.
Parties
will be given an opportunity to give evidence on the question of
acquisition of Bhumidari rights by the plaintiffs/ respondents ancl
on other issues which have not been decided so far. Costs of this
appeal shall abide the result of the suit.
G.C.
Appeal allowed .
L3 Sup Cl168--Jt