# RAM BADAN RAI AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1998] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 583
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-11-09
- **Bench:** S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-badan-rai-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors-16362
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 1(2), 3 and 4-Alteration of State boundaries-Powers of C
Parliament-Lands on the border of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh-Transfer ofChallenge on the ground that lands stood frozen as on 26.1.1950--Va/idity
of-Held, lands were not frozen as on 26.1.1950--Par/iament has sweeping
powers to alter the boundaries of any State-Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
(Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968.
.
D
Article 226---Writ jurisdiction-Scope and extent of-Alteration of
boundaries-Transfer of land from one State to another-Disputes regarding
title of possession, existence of disputed villages etc.-High Court holding
that the said disputes cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction without adducing
oral and documentary evidence-Validity of-Held, High Court justified in
not deciding the issue.
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries) Act, 1968 :
E
ss. 2, 3(l)(b)(ii), 3, 4 and 5-Alteration of boundaries-Transfer of
lands from one State to another-Minutes of the meeting between the
representatives of two States-Directions by Board of Revenue to prepare F
records and maps-Notification to place the disputed village under survey
and record operation-Held, within the jurisdiction of the authority and does
not amount to final ac(judication of the matter.
s.26---Territorial extent of law-Alteration of boundaries-Transfer of
lands from one State to another-Laws in force in transferor StateApplicability of-Held, even after transfer of lands, laws in force in transferor G
State shall continue to apply till the laws of transferee State are extended to
the areas so transferred.
Deep stream of the river Ganga formed the boundary between certain
districts in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh State. Due to change in the course of
583
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A River Ganga dispute arose as to whether large tracts ofland on the borders
of the two States formed part of the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. The
minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the two States
stated that the disp~d villages existed in Bihar State and stood transferred
to Uttar Pradesh State after the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of
B boundaries) Act, 1968 was passed. The Board of Revenue issued directions
to the Collector to prepare records and maps of the areas in Uttar Pradesh.
Subsequently, a notification was issued by the Government to place the
disputed villages under survey and record operation. Appellants claiming
to be old residents of the disputed villages, filed writ petition contending
that the boundaries between the States were frozen as on 26.1.1950 and the
C disputed villages were always under the Uttar Pradesh State and there was
no question of any transfer of lands under the Act. High Court disposed of
the said petition inter alia holding that the boundaries were not frozen as
on 26.1.1950 and under Article 3 of the Constitution/Parliament has
sweeping powers to alter the boundaries of any State; the dispute regarding
title of possession, dates of changes in the course of river Ganga and the
D existence of the disputed villages cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction
without adducing oral and documentary evidence. Hence this appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The boundaries between Bihar State and Uttar Pradesh
E State were not frozen as on 26.1.1950 and Article 3 of the Constitution
provides for alteration of boundaries by Parliamentary legislations. Thus,
High Court was justified in holding that Parliament has powers to alter the
boundaries of any State. [603-B-C)
1.2. In exercise of its powers under Article 3 of the Constitution,
F Parliament passed the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries)
Act, 1968. Consequently, certain territories in Shahabad District ofBihar
lying between the fixed boundary and the deep stream of the river Ganga
came to be transferred from Bihar State to Uttar Pradesh State.
(598-D; 603-B)
G
In Re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, (1960)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,810 of 71,168. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39810 for what follows._

A
RAM BADAN RAI AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
B
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 1(2), 3 and 4-Alteration of State boundaries-Powers of C
Parliament-Lands on the border of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh-Transfer ofChallenge on the ground that lands stood frozen as on 26.1.1950--Va/idity
of-Held, lands were not frozen as on 26.1.1950--Par/iament has sweeping
powers to alter the boundaries of any State-Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
(Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968.
.
D
Article 226---Writ jurisdiction-Scope and extent of-Alteration of
boundaries-Transfer of land from one State to another-Disputes regarding
title of possession, existence of disputed villages etc.-High Court holding
that the said disputes cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction without adducing
oral and documentary evidence-Validity of-Held, High Court justified in
not deciding the issue.
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries) Act, 1968 :
E
ss. 2, 3(l)(b)(ii), 3, 4 and 5-Alteration of boundaries-Transfer of
lands from one State to another-Minutes of the meeting between the
representatives of two States-Directions by Board of Revenue to prepare F
records and maps-Notification to place the disputed village under survey
and record operation-Held, within the jurisdiction of the authority and does
not amount to final ac(judication of the matter.
s.26---Territorial extent of law-Alteration of boundaries-Transfer of
lands from one State to another-Laws in force in transferor StateApplicability of-Held, even after transfer of lands, laws in force in transferor G
State shall continue to apply till the laws of transferee State are extended to
the areas so transferred.
Deep stream of the river Ganga formed the boundary between certain
districts in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh State. Due to change in the course of
583
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A River Ganga dispute arose as to whether large tracts ofland on the borders
of the two States formed part of the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. The
minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the two States
stated that the disp~d villages existed in Bihar State and stood transferred
to Uttar Pradesh State after the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of
B boundaries) Act, 1968 was passed. The Board of Revenue issued directions
to the Collector to prepare records and maps of the areas in Uttar Pradesh.
Subsequently, a notification was issued by the Government to place the
disputed villages under survey and record operation. Appellants claiming
to be old residents of the disputed villages, filed writ petition contending
that the boundaries between the States were frozen as on 26.1.1950 and the
C disputed villages were always under the Uttar Pradesh State and there was
no question of any transfer of lands under the Act. High Court disposed of
the said petition inter alia holding that the boundaries were not frozen as
on 26.1.1950 and under Article 3 of the Constitution/Parliament has
sweeping powers to alter the boundaries of any State; the dispute regarding
title of possession, dates of changes in the course of river Ganga and the
D existence of the disputed villages cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction
without adducing oral and documentary evidence. Hence this appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The boundaries between Bihar State and Uttar Pradesh
E State were not frozen as on 26.1.1950 and Article 3 of the Constitution
provides for alteration of boundaries by Parliamentary legislations. Thus,
High Court was justified in holding that Parliament has powers to alter the
boundaries of any State. [603-B-C)
1.2. In exercise of its powers under Article 3 of the Constitution,
F Parliament passed the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries)
Act, 1968. Consequently, certain territories in Shahabad District ofBihar
lying between the fixed boundary and the deep stream of the river Ganga
came to be transferred from Bihar State to Uttar Pradesh State.
(598-D; 603-B)
G
In Re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, (1960) 3 SCR
250 and Babula! Parate v. The State of Bombay and Anr., (1960) 1 SCR 605,
relied on.
2. High Court was justified in holding that the questions whether land
from the three disputed villages of Bihar got added to Uttar Pradesh by
H transfer, whether three disputed villages were non-existent or ghost villages
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1.
585
ofBihar created fictitiously by the officials of the State ofBihar, the dispute A
regarding title of r~session, and other related matters cannot be decided
in writ jurisdictio'~·oflasmuch as a lot of oral and documentary evidence is
to be adduced an'd considered by the courts or authorities under the Uttar
Pradesh Acts. (603-F-G)
3. The minutes of the meeting between the representatives of the two B
States, directions of the Board of Revenue and the notification issued
pursuant thereto were administrative in nature and no prior notice to the
appellants was necessary. High Court was justified in holding that the said
minutes, directions and notification was within the jurisdiction of the
authority and does not amount to any final adjudication of the matter. High C
Court also rightly held that the entries in the records could be scored off or
ignored only after notice under Section 54(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Land
Revenue Act. (604-B; 606-C; F)
4. In view of Section 26 of the 1968 Act, even after the transfer ofsome
territories from Bihar to Uttar Pradesh State, the Bihar laws in force in D
those areas before such transfer shall continue to apply in those territories
till the laws of transferee State of Uttar Pradesh are extended to the areas
so transferred to Uttar Pradesh State. (608-D]
Rattan Lal and Co. v. Assessing Authority, Patia/a, (1969) 2 SCR 544;
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, [1976) 3 SCC 242 and Dayanandv. Union of E
India, (1996) 7 SCC 47, relied on.
Ram Janam v. Radha Krishan Chaube, (1996] 8 SCC 277, referred to.
Radha Krishan Chaube v. Ram Janam, (1981] Allahabad L.J. 940,
approved.
F
5. The matter is remitted to the High Court to find out the feasibility
ofrepresentative actions being filed under the UP Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950. If the High Court thinks it feasible to have the
disputes decided under the 1950 Act, and at a higher level by the
Commissioner or other officer, it will be open to the High Court to issue G
appropriate directions. If the High Court thinks that such a procedure is
not feasible, it will be for the High Court to decide and leave the parties to
choose their further remedies after the conclusion of the cases under the
UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. (611-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3782 H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.88 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P.No. 10266 of 1986.
V.K.S. Chaudhary, V.V. Mishra, N.S. Gahlaut and A.S. Pundir for the
B Appellants.
c
R.K. Khanna, Rajeev Singh and R.P. Singh for Respondent No. 3.
Pramod Swamp and A.K. Srivastava for the Respondent Nos. 2, 4, and
5.
Kirit N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General and P. Parmeswaran for
the Responden~ No. l.
R.K. Jain and R.P. Wadhawani for the Intervenors.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. The river Ganga has been changing its
course over a period of years and a dispute has arisen in regard to a large
tract of land on the borders of the State of UP and State of Bihar as to
whether this land is to be treated as part of the State of Bihar or the State of
E Uttar Pradesh.
The appeal has arisen out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10266 of
1986 filed by six persons (appellants) claiming to be the old residents of
village Hansnagar, UP as it stood at the time of survey of 1981- 83. The
Union of India, the State of U.P. and the State (lf Bihar were impleaded as
F respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The Board of Revenue, UP and the Record Officer,
Ballia (UP) were imp leaded as respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The appellants
sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Record Officer, Ballia, UP from
carrying on survey and record operations in regard to village Hansnagar, UP
otherwise than on the basis that it was always a part of the State of UP and
G on the basis that it was not transferred territory under the Bihar and UP
Alteration ofBoundry Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the '1968 Act') and they
further required the survey and record operations to be carried out ignoring
the directions contained in the Minutes of the meeting of officials dated
19.10.84 and letter of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985. Alternatively,
they sought a writ of certiorari quashing the said minutes dated 19.10.1984
H and the directions of the Board of Revenue dated I 0.10.1985.
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]
587
As the matter concerns a few thousands of acres and there is a large A
volume of litigation pending in the Court, it has become necessary to go into
the matter in considerable detail.
Pleadings in High Court :
The petitioners-appellants, contended in the writ petition that they and B
certain others were residents of village Hansnagar (now U.P.) as recorded in
the survey of 1881-1883, that at the commencement of the Constitution of
India on 26.1.1950, the boundaries of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar States were
frozen and all land lying to the west of the eastern stream (then the deep
stream) formed part of Hansnagar of UP that, after 26.1.1950, despite the C
change in the course of the river Ganga, the said land continued in possession
of the appellants and was entered in the records of UP for which the appellants
continued to pay land revenue. According to them, if one excluded the fictitious
records and maps "created" by the officials of the State of Bihar there would
be no question of transferring any land as contemplated by the 1968 Act
from Bihar to U.P. State this land was in U.P. from 26.1.1950. The petitioners- D
appellants also contended that the three villages (i) Nainijor 1845, (ii) Nainijor
Nambrar and (iii) Nainijor Diare Paschim which the Bihar Government with
the Bihar respondents claimed as existing, were imaginary or ghost villages
only recorded in the records prepared by the Bihar officials. The appellants
contended that erroneous minutes were issued by the representatives of the E
two States and the Union oflndia on 19.10.1984, on the basis of the records
submitted by the Bihar officials. The said minutes read as follows.
"I. The U.P. Government may write to the Bihar Government
specifying the basic records required in respect of the lands comprised
in the three transferred villages in question and the Bihar Government F
would comply with their request within a month of receipt of the
relevant communication from the U.P. Government. The extent of
availability of records the State Governments may endorse copies of
their communications to this ministry.
II. The U.P. Government may retain the names of villages as appearing G
in the records transferred by Bihar Government.
III. Boundary pillars may be fixed on ground in accordance with the
provisions of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries)
Act, 1968. The U.P. Government may retain the names of villages as H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
appearing in the records transferred by the Bihar Government."
The appellants contend that the above minutes wrongly assume such villages
existed on Bihar side before 1968 and stood transferred to U.P. after the 1968
Act. The petitioners had received parchis-statement of the Record Officer
maintaining that their land was included in the newly-named satellite village
B of Bihar and they contend that the consequential directions contained in the
proceedings ofBoard of Revenue, UP dated 10.10.1985 were also bad. There
are all contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India as on 26.1.50
and also to the 1968 Act and were ultra-vires.
C
The Union of India in its counter in the High Court stated that the
record of rights proceedings in U.P. were part of judicial process and parties
could question the same in appeals and that the maps prepared by the Survey
of India department in regard to the transferred territories were relevant and
were intended to facilitate the identification of the transferred territories,
that, may be the three disputed villages did not figure in the Survey of India
D map of 1881-83 and so were not included in the Schedule to the 1968 Act
but they were shown with reference to revenue records in force at the time
of transfer as envisaged in section 3( 4) of the 1968 Act. The purpose of the
meeting of 19.10.1984 was administrative in nature for resolving differences
between the two States and there was no question of any notice to the
E petitioners. The names of the three villages have now been included in the
map of the Survey of India in accordance with information given by the
Bihar Government.
The State of UP, in its counter in the High Court, stated that the survey
and record operations of village Hansnagar of Ballia Dt. (UP) were being
F carried on in accordance with the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and an
agreement was arrived at during the 19.10.1984 meeting and directions were
given by Board of Revenue, UP. The UP Government does not dispute that
in 194-1 the river Ganga changed its course and entire area of village Hansnagar
stood transferred to UP by 1950 and that the said village was part of District
G Ballia in U.P. as mentioned in the Survey map of 1881-83. However, in
1961, the river· Ganga changed course again and the entire Hansnagar village
went back to Bihar State. Under the 1968 Act, by virtue of the statutory
transfer the said land reverted back to UP. The UP State further stated that
the Bihar Government handed over record of the three disputed villages
covering an area of 2000 acres of Hansnagar and about 475 acres of village
H Jauhi, UP. The State of UP contended that records of the three disputed
R.B. RA! v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]
589
villages have been prepared and parchis have been issued. Objections have A
been filed and are pending before the Assistant Record Officer, Ballia, UP.
The directions issued by the UP Board of Revenue were necessary for
correcting the double entries prevailing in the revenue records. The petitioners
will have opportunity to urge their cases before the various authorities under
the UP Land Revenue Act.
B
The State of Bihar, in its counter in the High Court, stated that the
position which existed before 1881-83 was altered after 1881-83, and
considerable portion of village Nainijor went over from Bihar to UP side in
1881-83, and that portion was indicated as part of Hansnagar of UP, that
portion was incapable of cultivation since it consisted of sandy tracts. After C
1881-83, the river started receding in the other direction and as a result land
of village Nainijor was again thrown up on Bihar side of the river. A cadestral
survey was conducted in the year 1909-1910 by the State ofBihar, but during
that survey, the portion which was again thrown on Bihar side of the river
was not cadestrally surveyed and included in the village boundary of village D
Nainijor as this portion was not fully established by then. But after the land
of village Nainijor reappeared on the Shahabad side (Bhoj Dt.), (Bihar) tenants
of village Nainijor took possession of these lands as and when it became fit
for agriculture. The Maharaj a of Dunnrao, the then landlord of the village, also
accepted them as tenants. After the vesting consequent to the abolition of
Zamindari in Bihar, rent-receipts were regularly granted by the State ofBihar E
to these tenants who were still in possession of the land. The three villages
were real and were neither imaginary nor ghost villages. Till the transfer of
records to UP, in 1968 , the areas of the three questioned villages were under
the revenue control of the Government of Bihar. The State of Bihar reiterated
that the river changed its course in 1961 and land reappeared on Nainijor side F
in Bihar. The UP Government, according to the State of Bihar, never exercised
control over these lands in Nainijor from 1927 to 1944. Rather, the area was
under the revenue control of the Bihar Government. The deep stream was the
boundary. The three villages stood transferred under the 1968 Act to the UP
States. The meeting of 19 .10.1984 was an administrative one and there was no
question of giving notice to rival claimants.
G
During the pendency of the case in the High Court, Baleshwar Tiwari
and 67 others, claiming to be tenants of land on Nainijor side, (Bihar) got
impleaded and filed counter affidavit (They were impleaded in this Court also
as respondents by order dated 19.10.1989 in CMP No. 11100of1989). They
raised the plea of res-judicata on account of certain judgments in UP, 8474/ H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A 85, 8592 of 1986 and 4005/86. They traced the history of village Hansnagar
in UP from 1840 and asserted that initially the said village was having a much
smaller area. After 1881-83, the river changed its course and a large chunk of
land of Hansnagar and other villages went to Bihar side. Village Nainijor 1845,
Nainijor Diare Paschim and Nainijor Nambrar came into existence. There was
fresh settlement with the tenants of Bihar side in these three villages. These
B respondents of Nainijor have been holding the lands in these three villages
from the time of their ancestors. They referred to the record maintained by
the officials of the UP Government. They also referred to a notification No.
U.O.l./IF-72 dated 26.7.73 of the UP Government under which the village of
Hansnagar and the three villages Nainijor Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar
C and Nainijor 1845 were placed by the UP Government under survey and
record operations. In the proceedings relating to the description of the villages,
Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar and Nainijor 1845 - there were important
notes. This notification & the directions therein must be deemed to have been
issued under section 234 of the Land Revenue Act and were not challenged.
D
The land was part of Bihar and stood transferred to UP only under the 1968
Act. The other litigations referred to by the writ petitioners did not concern
these three villages. They contended that Nainijor village was different from
these three villages. They contended that the records maintained by the Bihar
Government were correct.
E
In the High Court, rejoinders were filed by the appellants writ petitioners
F
to contend that these lands were always part of Hansnagar on UP side and
that there was no question of their being transferred to UP under the 1968
Act. The three disputed villages never existed in Bihar side and respondentsinterveners have no right to these lands. The minutes of 1984 and the Board's
direction of 1985 and the 1973 notification were bad.
A question was argued whether in view of section 26 of the 1968 Act,
the UP statutes could be straightway applied to territories transferred from
Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act.
G
High Court Judgment :
On these pleadings, the High Court held as follows: (I) The judgment
referred to by the respondents in writ petitions 8474 of 1986 (Ram Shankar
Rai v. UOI); WP No. 4005of1986, 8592/80 (Ram Nath Pandey v. Board of
Revenue) and in 79656/86 (Bajrangi v. Board of Revenue) would not operate
H as res-judicata against the writ petitioners who were not parties thereto;
' }
R.B. RA! v. U.O.l. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]
591
(2) The meeting of officials dated 19.10.1984 was held by both States A
under the aegis of the Central Government. The first part of the letter of the
Board of Revenue dated I 0.10.1985 was intended to give effect to the said
minutes. The contention urged on behalf of the respondents and the
interveners (respondents of Nainijor) that the agreement was an act of State
as between the two States did not arise because that States within Union of
India were not sovereign (but were subject to the Constitution) and the real
question was whether the said minutes and directions were in conformity with
the Constitution of India and the 1968 Act;
(3) The contentions of the writ petitioners, namely (i) that the boundary
B
of UP and Bihar became frozen on 26.1.1950 and this territory went to UP side C
because the river changed its course in 1944 and the eastern stream became
the deep stream as was also the position at the time of survey of 1981-83. (ii)
that all land lying to the west of deep eastern stream became part of UP, that
no circular or regulation in vogue before 26.1.1950 could have changed the
frozen boundary again, that the change of course in 1960 or thereafter was
irrelevant- (iii) that even if the western stream became the deep stream the D
land to its east (i.e. west of the eastern stream which was earlier the deep
stream before 1961) continued to remain with UP by 1968 and the 1968 Act
could not transfer any land from UP State to Bihar State-were contentions not
acceptable because of the judgment of this Court in State of West Bengal v.
Union of India, [1964] I SCR 371 inasmuch as Parliament has sweeping E
powers under Article 3 of the Constitution of India;
(4) The contention of the petitioners that the land between the two
streams was part of Hansnagar on UP side and the further contention that
the record of these villages maintained by the Bihar Government was fictitious
and the contention of the counsel for Bihar that these three villages were in F
existence and that this was borne out by the records- was a matter which
"involves probe into questions of fact which need consideration of
oral evidence in this regard and opportunities to the parties to lead
documentary evidence. The dispute between the parties can be decided
in regular proceedings with regard to the disputed land situated G
between the two streams.";
(5) The contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid area could not
be treated as part of the 'transferred territory' under the 1968 Act could not
be finally decided in these writ proceedings as the C&urt was not in a position
to conclude whether the disputed land was part and parcel of UP State or it H
592
SUPREME COURT RE~ORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A became really a part and parcel of UP State or it became really a part and
parcel ofBihar and thereafter stood transferred to State of UP. The High Court
observed:
"On the materials before us, we are unable to express concluded
opinion on the question whether the disputed land ever fonned part
B
of Bihar State and is transferred territory to UP within the meaning of
the provisions of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries)
Act. Accordingly, we refrain from accepting the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioners in this regard".
(6) So far as the validity of the 'boundaries' and 'maps' prepared under
C the 1968 Act was concerned and the contention that these three villages were
the imaginary creation of the Bihar officials- in view of sub-section (2) to (4)
of section 3, the 'demarcation of the boundary' by authority approved by
the Central Government was sacrosant but the map prepared under section
3( 4) being an official one, raised only a rebutable presumption of correctness
D in view of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. This point was supported
by the note of the Surveyor-General to the effect that he did not verify the
topography;
(7) Assuming that the Bihar officials in their records sent names of
three villages in contravention on Bihar law and without assigning any Tauzi
E or Thana number- the actual occupants or tenants of the land of all these
three villages could not be deprived of their rights without adjudication of
the existence of these villages and of the tenancy rights thereto and such an
adjudication could not be made in writ jurisdiction;
(8) The UP Government issued notification in 1973 for survey in respect
F of the three villages Nainijor Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar and Nainijor
1845, the notification showed Nainijor Diara Paschim covering parts of
villages Dabutiel, Bandhoo Chak Haldi Rikni, Chapra, Hansnagar Janhi,
Chambey, be! and chambey be! Ganga barar ; Nainijor Nambrar covering
parts of Jaunhi, and Nainijor 1845 covering part of Hansnagar. But this was
G shown (after) survey. The High Court observed, it should not be forgotten
that in the 1968 Act, boundaries had been fixed wit'· reference to the survey
of 1881-83 and if the three villages, on survey and physical verification, were
found to exist, it would have to be ascertained in which village of UP according
to the survey of 1881-83, they lay;
H
(9) The plea of petitioners that both the minutes of 19.10.1984 and the
-
'.
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]
593
first part of the letter of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985 and the A
notification of 26. 7 .1973 for survey were without jurisdiction was without
substance (Para 44);
(10) If in the notices Parchis on specific plots, names of persons and
•
villages of both sides were recorded and notices were sent to both sides,
there was nothing illegal or contrary in that action inasmuch as these entries B
were liable to correction, after adjudication, under section 54(2) of the UP
Land Revenue Act. When the entries in the records maintained by UP and
Bihar officials were conflicting and mistakes and disputes were apparent, they
could be corrected and resolved only in the manner prescribed, as the case
might be, under sections 54, 40, 41, 43 of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. C
If the mistakes and disputes could not be resolved by correction (by the Naib
Tehsildar}, then the records along with objections, should be forwarded to
the Assistant Records Officer, who could dispose of the same under section
54 (6), in accordance with sections 40,41, or 43 ;
(11) In the instant case, the dispute involved questions of title because D
the parties on UP side claimed themselves to be tenants whereas the parties
on Bihar side also claimed to be tenants of the same land. When the dispute
involved a question of title, the Assistant Record Officer should decide the
same after summary inquiry. Such decision was appealable under section 210
and was revisable before the Board of Revenue under section 219;
E
(12) The survey and record operations were part of judicial process, as
seen from Chapter IX (sections 189 to 209) of UP Land Revenue Act. The
Assistant Records Officer, constituted a Court. There was no statutory
prohibition for appearance of lawyers or for accepting oral evidence to be
adduced. The Asstt. Records Officer could not exclude oral evidence though F
he might not record evidence verbatim ;
(13) The direction in the letter of the Board of Revenue that summary
proceedings might be decided without the presence of lawyers and without
oral evidence was, therefore, contrary to the provision of the UP Land Revenue
Act, 190 I and that part of the 1985 order of the Board of Revenue prohibiting G
engagement of lawyers or oral evidence was liable to be struck down. The
Asst. Records Officer could consolidate cases under section 192-A of the UP
Land Revenue Act, 1901 to obviate multiplicity of evidence and hearings;
(14) A seasoned and experienced officer of unquestionable integrity
could be appointed by the State Government as the Asst. Records Officer for H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A disposing of these cases under section 54( 6);
(15) Rest of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners-appellants were liable
to be rejected. That is how the High Court disposed of the matter.
In this appeal, elaborate submissions were made by Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary,
B senior counsel for appeallants, Shri R.K. Khanna for respondent No. 3, Shri
Pramod Swamp for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, Shri Kirti N. Raval, Addi.
Solicitor General for respondent No. 1 and Shri R.K. Jain, senior counsel for
the interveners. The same contentions urged in the High Court were reiterated
before us.
C
The following points arise for consideration:
D
E
F
(1) Whether under Articles 1 (2), 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India,
the boundaries between Bihar and State of UP became frozen as on
26.1.1950 and whether there was no question of transfer of territory
from Bihar State to UP State under the 1968 Act?
(2) Whether the High Court was right in not deciding issues of title
or possession or the dates of changes in the course of the river Ganga
or on which side this land lay before the 1968 Act and also as to
existence of these three villages or as to whether these three villages
stood transferred in 1968 to the state of UP?
(3) Whether the UP statutes could be applied to the territories
transferred from Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act and whether they
were extended to the transferred territory?
(4) To what relief.
Point /:
It is necessary, at the outset, to refer to the historical aspects of the
case in relation to the change of course of the river Ganga. The same has been
set out in Radha Krishna Chaube & Anr. v. Ram Janam and Anr., [1981]
G Allahabad L.J. 940 by S.J. Hyder, J. That judgment was no doubt reversed
by this Court in Ram Janam v. Radha Krishna, Chaube, [1996] 8 SCC 277
on a narrow point.
Period from 1825 to 1950:
H
The Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation of 1825 (Regulation No.
R.B. RAI v. U.O.I. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]
XI of 1825) states in its preamble as follows:
595
A
"In consequence of the frequent changes which take place in the
channel of the principal rivers that intersect the territories immediately
subject to the presidency of Fort William and the shifting of the sands
which lie in the beds of those rivers, chars or small islands are often
thrown up by the alluvion in the midst of the stream, or near one of B
the banks and large portions of land are carried away by an
encroachment of the river on one side, whilst accession of land are
at the same time, or in subsequent years gained by dereliction of the
water on the opposite side; similar instances of alluvion, encroachment
and dereliction also sometimes occur on the sea coast which borders C
the Southern and the South-eastern limits of Bengal. The lands gained
from the rivers or sea by the means above mentioned are a frequent
source of contention and affray, and although the law and custom in
the country have established rules applicable to such cases these
rules not being generally known, the Courts of Justice have sometimes
found it difficult to determine the rights of litigant parties claiming D
chars or other land g,ained in the manner above described."
The Regulation, therefore, issued certain guidelines for determining the
ownership of the land gained by alluvion or diluvion whenever disputes arose
between individuals. The Regulation of 1825 did not concern itself with the
boundaries of any geographical areas in Bihar or UP. However, the Governor E
General issued two notifications in the year 1867 and 1871 which provided
that the 'deep stream' of the river Ganga and Ghagra should be considered
to be the boundary of the districts of Shahabad and Saran on Bihar side
and the district of Bal/ia on the UP side. Problems relating to boundary arose
because sometimes the eastern stream and sometimes the western stream
between the two. States-became the deep stream.
Whether boundaries frozen as on 26.1.1950
F
In the Constitution of India as it stood on 26.1.1950, it was stated in
Article 1(2) that the States and territories of India shall be the States and their G
territories as specified in Parts A, B and C of the First Schedule. In the First
Schedule Part A, at serial No. 2 we have the State of Bihar and at serial No.
8, we have the State of United Provinces. It was further stated in the said First
Schedule under the heading 'Territories of States' in para 3 that the territory
of each of the States referred to in that para in Part A shall comprise the
territories which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A were comprised in the corresponding province (i.e, Bihar Province and
United India Province) and the territories which, by virtue of an order made
under Section 290 A of the Government oflndia Act, 1935 were immediately
before such commencement being administered as if they formed part of that
province.
B
According to the appellants, the territories comprised in the Part A
State of United Provinces as on 26.1.50 stood frozen and that on that day,
-by virtue of the then position of the deep stream,--being the eastern
stream, these lands were to the west of the said stream and stood physically
included in the State of United Provinces. According to the appellants, if
C subsequently, after 1950 the Western stream became the deep stream, that
could not be taken cognizance of because under Article I (3), the position as
on 26.1.50 stood geographically frozen.
This contention, in our view, was rightly rejected by the High Court.
(Here we are not to be understood as deciding the existence or otherwise
D of the three disputed villages). In Article 3 of the Constitution, it is stated as
follows:
"Article 3: Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries
or names of existing States : Parliament may by lawE
(a) form a new State ............ .
F
(b) increase the area of any State,
(c) diminish the area of any State,
( d) alter the boundaries of any State;
( e) alter the name of any State.
Provided that ........................... "
It is obvious that under sub clause (d) of Article 3, the boundaries as on
26.1.50. between the States were clearly made subject to alteration by
G Parliamentary legislation.
(i) Constitutional Amendments 1955, 1956 and the Bihar & West Bengal
(Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1956:
By the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, the proviso to Article
H 3 was substituted by a new proviso which read as follows:
R.B. RAI v. U.O.l. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.)
597
"Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either A
House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President
and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the areas,
boundaries or name of any of the States specified in Part A or Part
B of the First Schedule, the Bill has been referred by the President to
the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within B
such period as may be specified in the reference or within such
further period as the President may allow and the period so specified
or allowed has expired."
The words 'specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule, were
omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. By virtue of the C
said Seventh Amendment Act, 1956, Article 1(2) was amended as 'The States
and Territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule'. The First
Schedule was also simultaneously amended and so far as serial No. 3, the
State of Bihar was concerned, it would comprise of "territories which
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution were either
comprised in the Province on Bihar or were being administered as if they D
formed part of that province, but excluding the territories specified in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer a/Territories)
Act, 1956". So far as serial No. 12, the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned,
it was to comprise of the 'territories which immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution of India were either comprised in the E
Province known as the United Provinces or were administered as if they
formed part of that province.'
(ii) Arbitration by Shri C.M Trivedi, JCS and the 1968 Act: The
changes in the deep stream resulted in a meeting of the Chief Ministers of
the two States in 1961 and they agreed to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator F
to be appointed by the Prime Minister and to abide by the decision to be
given by the Prime Minister on a consideration of the recommendation of the
Arbitrator. Accordingly, Shri C.M. Trivedi, JCS former Governor of the State
of Andhra Pradesh was appointed Arbitrator and he submitted his report to
the late Prime Minister, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri on 28.8.1964 recommepding
a fixed boundary in both the Ganga and Ghagra sectors. The recommendations G
were accepted by the late Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri and conveyed
to the State Governments. The effect of the recommendations made by Shri
C.M. Trivedi was as follows :
(1) On the basis of the 1963-64 deep stream position, the fixed
boundary involves the transfer of an area of about 45 sq. miles from H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
UP to Bihar and about 64 sq. miles from Bihar to UP;
B
c
(2) About 85% of the fixed boundary will 'be on land in the Ganga
sector and 75% of it will be on land in the Ghagra sector, whereas the
entire land (in 1968) (as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the 1968 Act) lay in water;
(3) The deep stream of the river ganga forms the inter-state boundary
between Shahabad district (Bihar) and Ballia District (U.P.). Similarly
the deep stream of the river Ghagra in the inter-state boundary between
the Saran district (Bihar) and Ballia District (U.P.). As the two rivers
change their course almost every year, the deep streams do not remain
constant with the result that the inter-state boundary continued to
fluctuate. Hence the above recommendations in ( 1) and (2) above
have been given.
Accordingly, the Bihar and UP (Alteration of Boundaries ) Act, 1968
(Act 24 of 1968) came to be passed by Parliament and as required by Article
D · 3 of the Constitution of India, the Bill was referred by the President of India
to the Legislatures of the States of Bihar and UP for their views.
The said Act in Section 2(a) speaks of an 'appointed day' and the
transfer of territories under Section 3(a) is to be effective from the 'appointed ·
E day'. The 'appointed day' has been fixed as 10.6.1970 (Gazette oflndia, 3.6.70,
Part II Section 3(1), Ext. p. 543 ofGSR 901). The Act also defines 'deep stream'
in Section 2(c) and 'fixed boundaries' in Section 2(d) as follows:
F
G
"Section 2(c): 'deep stream', in relation to the river Ganga or the river
Ghagra, means the 'deep stream · thereof as verified and agreed upon
by the State Government of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh after the 30th day
of September of the year preceding the year in which the appointed
day falls and before the 1st day of January of the year in which the
appointed day falls and in default of agreement between the State
Governments, as determined by such authority as may be specified by
.the Central Government.
Section 2(d): 'fixed boundary' means the boundary line demarcated
under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 in relation to the
river Ganga or the river Ghagra, as the case may be."
The words 'transferred territories' are defined in Section 2(i} as follows:
H
"Section 2(i): 'transferred territories' means (i) in relation to the State
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]
599
of Bihar, the territories transferred by this Act from that State to the A
State of Uttar Pradesh and (ii) in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh,
the territories transferred by this Act from that State to the State of
Bihar."
and Section 20) says that 'any reference to a district of a State shall be
contained as a reference to the area physically comprised within the district B
immediately before the appointed day.
The 1968 Act, in Part II, deals with the 'transfer of territories'. It says
as follows:
"Section 3. Transfer of Territories: (I) As from the appointed day-
(a) there shall be added to the State of Bihar-
(i) ................................................................ .
(ii) .................................................................