# Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev

- **Citation:** [1962] 3 S.C.R. 213
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. SuBBA RAO, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rani-purnima-devi-v-kumar-khagendra-narayan-dev-2442
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Zamindari Abolition-Pension paid in lieu of compen·
sation for loss of Tehsildari rights and proprietary rights-If
interest in land-U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901(U.P. 3 of 1901),
s.32, els. (a) to (d)-U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land .Reforms
Act, 1950 (U.P. 1 of 1951), ss.3(8), 4, 63(b).
By the order of the then Government the right of S,
an anccster of the respondent,
to the entire parganas
"S¥udpore Bhettree''. was
resumed. S challenged in a
c1V1l court the authority of the Government to resume his
interest in the jagir. During the pendency of the dispute,
settlement proceedings were commenced and in 1832 the
Settlement Officer reported that to 166 mahals of the
"Syudpore Bhettree" pargana, the village zamindars had
established their proprietory rights and only on 12 mahals
the proprietory right of S had been
established. The
dispute pending in t_he Civil Court was compromised, and
t~e t~rms were fin~hsed in 1838 with H, son of S (who had
died m the meantime). The terms, inter alia, were that for
1961
Rani Purnima Devi
v.
Kumar Khagendra
Narayan Dev
Wanehoo J.
1961
.A.ugull 22.
1911
Stale nf
l.:'ttar P1-11rle11Ti
v.
Kun>rar
Sri ]"riv•krmn
.Varuin s:11gh
214
SUPREME COUH.T REPORTS
[UJG2)
166 mahals settled with the Zamindars, H and his heirs in .;·
perpetuity,
be paid annually a pension' of !;4th of the ,.
collections after deducting the !cbsildari charges and for
12 mahals settled with H allowance be made in the fo1m of
rcmi..;sion of J .·4th of the revenue asscsst:<l.
The Go\'crnment
under the .settlement intendc<l to gh·c a clear fourth of the
net revenue of the parganao; as pension. 'fhe allowance and 1
or pension \Vas paid through Treasury Office vcar after vea~
from 1838 to If and his descendants.
·
·
In 1951 the U.P. Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh
Zarnindari Abo!ition and Land Reforms Act I of 1951, and
under s.G(b) of the Act the revenue authorities stopped payment
of thr allowance to the respondent. The respondent claimed
that by virtue of the notification issued under s.4 of the Act
his right to receive pension did not cease because the pension
, ... as neither Jand
nor immovable property nor an estate
Y·.rithin the meaning of the Act and being merely compensation
payable to hirn in lieu of the rights of his ancestors ovc:: the
estates coin prised v.:ithin the pargana "S}11dpore Bhcttrec", it
was no.t liable to vest in the Seate.
Held, that the right to recei,·e the allowance ofRs.30,612-8-0
for 166 mahal< from the Government u:"lder
the arrangeinent was not in respect of Jand or its re\·cnue; it v.-·as granted
as consideration for settlement of a claim litigated in a civil
court relating to that lane.I, and could· not in the absence of an
express provision to that effect be called "an area included under
f
•
one entry in any of the rcgisters'
1 described in various clauses,
>-
(a) to (d) of s.32 of the U.P. I.and Revenue Act, 1901.
•
The intention of the Legislature
was to extinguish
estates and all derivative rights in estates and to extinguish the
interest of intermediaries between the State and the tiller of
-
the soil. 'The grant of confirmation of title \vhich is in respect
>
of a right or privilege to land in an estate or its revenue; it
must determine under cl. (b) of s.6 of the Act; but a ri![ht to
receive an allowance granted in consideration of extinct ion of
"'
a right to land or land revenue does not by the force of cl.(b)
"-
determine. The allowance has not the quality of land or land
revenue; its qtJantum only was measured by equating it i,vith a
fourth share in the 11et revenue of a part of land v.·hich \vas the
subject matter of the suit in which arrangement for payment of
the allowance was n1ac.le.
A person receiving an allowance
fron1 the State in consideration "of extinction of a right to
land or land revenue is not a proprietor who is an assignee of
land revenue/' and in particular if his name is not entered in
~
the revenue record under cls.(a) to (d) '?f s.32 of :he U.P .. Land .• "J _
R

## Text

-~
' r
..
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
213
we have enumerated above. We are therefore not
satisfied about the due execution and attestation of
this will by the testator and hold that the propoun·
der has been unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which surround the execution and attestation
of this will.
In the circumstances, no letters of
administration in favour of the respondent can be
granted on the basis of it.
We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the
judgments of the High Court and the trial court and
dismiss the suit arising out of the application for
probate made by the respondent. The appellants
will
get
their costs
throughout
from the
respondent, Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb.
Appeal allowed.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
KUNW AR SRI TRIVITIBAM NARAIN SINGH
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Zamindari Abolition-Pension paid in lieu of compen·
sation for loss of Tehsildari rights and proprietary rights-If
interest in land-U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901(U.P. 3 of 1901),
s.32, els. (a) to (d)-U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land .Reforms
Act, 1950 (U.P. 1 of 1951), ss.3(8), 4, 63(b).
By the order of the then Government the right of S,
an anccster of the respondent,
to the entire parganas
"S¥udpore Bhettree''. was
resumed. S challenged in a
c1V1l court the authority of the Government to resume his
interest in the jagir. During the pendency of the dispute,
settlement proceedings were commenced and in 1832 the
Settlement Officer reported that to 166 mahals of the
"Syudpore Bhettree" pargana, the village zamindars had
established their proprietory rights and only on 12 mahals
the proprietory right of S had been
established. The
dispute pending in t_he Civil Court was compromised, and
t~e t~rms were fin~hsed in 1838 with H, son of S (who had
died m the meantime). The terms, inter alia, were that for
1961
Rani Purnima Devi
v.
Kumar Khagendra
Narayan Dev
Wanehoo J.
1961
.A.ugull 22.
1911
Stale nf
l.:'ttar P1-11rle11Ti
v.
Kun>rar
Sri ]"riv•krmn
.Varuin s:11gh
214
SUPREME COUH.T REPORTS
[UJG2)
166 mahals settled with the Zamindars, H and his heirs in .;·
perpetuity,
be paid annually a pension' of !;4th of the ,.
collections after deducting the !cbsildari charges and for
12 mahals settled with H allowance be made in the fo1m of
rcmi..;sion of J .·4th of the revenue asscsst:<l.
The Go\'crnment
under the .settlement intendc<l to gh·c a clear fourth of the
net revenue of the parganao; as pension. 'fhe allowance and 1
or pension \Vas paid through Treasury Office vcar after vea~
from 1838 to If and his descendants.
·
·
In 1951 the U.P. Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh
Zarnindari Abo!ition and Land Reforms Act I of 1951, and
under s.G(b) of the Act the revenue authorities stopped payment
of thr allowance to the respondent. The respondent claimed
that by virtue of the notification issued under s.4 of the Act
his right to receive pension did not cease because the pension
, ... as neither Jand
nor immovable property nor an estate
Y·.rithin the meaning of the Act and being merely compensation
payable to hirn in lieu of the rights of his ancestors ovc:: the
estates coin prised v.:ithin the pargana "S}11dpore Bhcttrec", it
was no.t liable to vest in the Seate.
Held, that the right to recei,·e the allowance ofRs.30,612-8-0
for 166 mahal< from the Government u:"lder
the arrangeinent was not in respect of Jand or its re\·cnue; it v.-·as granted
as consideration for settlement of a claim litigated in a civil
court relating to that lane.I, and could· not in the absence of an
express provision to that effect be called "an area included under
f
•
one entry in any of the rcgisters'
1 described in various clauses,
>-
(a) to (d) of s.32 of the U.P. I.and Revenue Act, 1901.
•
The intention of the Legislature
was to extinguish
estates and all derivative rights in estates and to extinguish the
interest of intermediaries between the State and the tiller of
-
the soil. 'The grant of confirmation of title \vhich is in respect
>
of a right or privilege to land in an estate or its revenue; it
must determine under cl. (b) of s.6 of the Act; but a ri![ht to
receive an allowance granted in consideration of extinct ion of
"'
a right to land or land revenue does not by the force of cl.(b)
"-
determine. The allowance has not the quality of land or land
revenue; its qtJantum only was measured by equating it i,vith a
fourth share in the 11et revenue of a part of land v.·hich \vas the
subject matter of the suit in which arrangement for payment of
the allowance was n1ac.le.
A person receiving an allowance
fron1 the State in consideration "of extinction of a right to
land or land revenue is not a proprietor who is an assignee of
land revenue/' and in particular if his name is not entered in
~
the revenue record under cls.(a) to (d) '?f s.32 of :he U.P .. Land .• "J _
Revenue Act, 1901, the proVJSioru relating to computation of
gross and net assets will not apply to him. -The Act does not
int<:nd to extinguish the right to receive alloWancC granted in
--
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
215
considerations of extinction of right to land or land revenue by
the operation of s.6(b) of the Act 1 of 1951.
Held further, that the respondent was a proprietor of the
12 mahals: of the "Syudpore Bhettree" Parganas. The said 12
mahals were an "estate" within the meaning of s.3(8) of the
Act and by s. 4 the right of the respondent in that estate stood
vested in and transferred to the State. The right of the
respondent in the 12 mahals having ceased, the right of re~is
sion could not be converted into a positive right to receive
the amount thereof.
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 529 of 1958.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
March 9,1956,of the Allahabad High Court in Civil
Misc. Writ No. 464 of 1954.
O. B. Agwarwala, K. B. Asthana and 0. P. Lal,
for the appellants.
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India,
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and S. P. Varma, for the
respondent.
1961. August 22. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAH, J.-Under a treaty between the East
India Company and Nawab Asafuddaula, the Province of Banaras was ceded about the year 1775 to
the East India Company. Tht> Company then granted a sanad to Raja Chet Singh, the former ruler of
Banaras, and under that sanad, the rights and
powers previously held by Raja Chet Singh were
conferred afresh.
Raja Chet Singh granted in jagir,
pargana "Syudpore Bhettree" in perpetuity to bis
Diwan Ousan Singh as remuneration for services rendered to his family. Raja Chet Singh having renounced his gadi, the East India Company confirmed the grant made by the Raja in favour of Ousan
Singh. Raja Chet Singh was succeeded by Raja
Mahip Narain Singh who executed a sanad in favour
of Ousan Singh affirming the grant.
Land revenue settlements were made in the
Province of Banaras about the year 1789-90, but
the jagirs including "Syudpore Bhettree" were excluded from that settlement. Ousan Singh died in or
1961
State of
Uttfl7' Prad1ah
v.
Kunwar
Sri TrivikTam
Narain Singh
Slich J,
1961
Stal• of
Uttar Pradt.Jh
v.
Kun1car
Sri TriviJ:ram
Narain Singh
Shah J.
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l!l62]
about th" year 1800, and his son Shco Xarain Singh
succeec!ed to the jagir. In the enquiry held by the Collector of Ghazi pore into the proprietary right claimed by the jagirdar under Regulation II of 181!), it
was declared that the grant to Ousan Singh 1rns for
Jifo only and die! not confer a heritabk or transfora.blc tnnuro in the parga.nas. Tho decision of the Collector was confirmed hv the Commissioner of Bihar
and Banaras, subject "to the recommendation that
Shco Xarain Singh should be maintained in possession r;f the p:i.rganas for lifo. The Governmc·nt then
directed in 1828 that a detailed settlement he made
with the village za.miudars, and offered Sheo Narain
Singh allowance for !ifo of one-ha.If of the revenue
to be asseBsed on tho pargana. Sheo Kara.in Singh
declined to accept the offer and commenced an
action in the civil court contosting the validity of the
order resuming the jagir. Tho Government considerrd
the question afresh, and resolved to reviso the
or~er of resumption and in July 1830, ordered that
Shco Narain Singh be considered Tahsilrlar of parganas "Syudpore Bhettrec," and tha~ the office be
treated as hereditary devolving upon the d,,sccndants of the jagirrlar a.nd held so long a8 the incumbent clid not infringe the privileges found to belong
to other olu.sscs at tho time of formation of tho
settlement. Sheo :Narain Singh died before the reRolution of the Government was communicated to
him and he was succeeded by his son Harnarain
Singh who withdrew tho suit and signed a compromise incorporating tho terms of the resolution.
On August 19, 1831, the Secretary to the Government addressed to the Agent of tho GovernorGencral at Banaras a letter requesting the Socrctary
to tho Govornor-Genoral in the Pension department
to prepare tho necessary documents relating to the
grant of a sanad specifying that parganas "Syudporo
Bhettroe" wore granted on an "istmrar" tenure to
Harnarain Singh for his own benefit and of his heirs
and succeesors in perpetuity on condition of their
,
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
217
paying to Government 3/4ths of the Jamma which
the revenue officers may in a resettlement of the
parganas assess thereon, and that all claims to
proprietary right to any village or villages situate in
the said parganas shall he fully enquired into and in
the event of auy such claims being established to the
satisfaction of the Government, the village or vii·
!ages forming the subject of the claim shall be con·
sidered distinct from and independent of t.he grant
and that a settlement Hhall be made wit.h the nroprietors as in other cases, that the office of Tahsi].
dar shall belong to Harnarain Singh and be h3re·
ditary in his family so long as the conditions prescribed for the duties of that office be not infringed,
and that in virtue of such office, the separate pro·
prietors shall continue to pay the Jamma "'hich may
be assessed on their villages through Harnarain Singh
or such other member of the family as the Government may appoint, provided that l/4th of the
Jamma of such separated villages shall be deducted
from the payment to be made to the Government in
lieu of all remuneration for discharging the duties
of Tahsildar, and provided further that until the
settlement shall be completed, Harnarain Singh shall
continue to pay Jamma to Government. This propo·
sal calling upon Hamara.in Singh to bear all the
expenses of the administration and any loss in collection which may occur, departed from the terms of
the compromise. Harnarain Singh refused to accept
the offer of a sanad on the terms set out in that
letter and also the office of Tahsildar. In the meanwhile, proceedings for settlement were commenced
and on November 16, 1832, the Settlement Officer
reported on the conclusion of a summary settlement
of the parganas that in 166 mahals, the village
zamindars established proprietary rights and the
revenue assessed upon them was Rs. 1,28,960. He
further reported that 12 mahals of which the gross
revenue was Rs. 22,840 were settled with the jagirdar at a reduced revenue of Rs. 17,130.
Harnarain Singh having refused to undertake
I
1961
State of
Uttar Pradesh
v.
Kunwar
Sri Trivikram
Narain Singh
Shah J.
1961
Slalt qf
L'ltar Prad~al~
Y.
Kunu·ar
Sri ·rrivil.-ram •
.lriarain Sinuh
S!r.h J.
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[Hl62]
tho oflicc of Tahsildar on the term, offered by tho
Government, the Board of Revenue suggested that
Harnarain Singh should receive I/4th of the net collections after deducting from the gros~ collection
the '"'st. of Tahsil cstabli~lnnent thcrcb\' gi\,in" him
.
"
an income of R•. 3G,:\:?.2-8-0. The Board of Revenue
r"commcndcd that a sanad be issued under the authority of the Lt. Governor conferring "tho pension
of gs, 3G,3:!::!-8-0 011 Ba!Jll Hamara in Singh and his
hdrn in perpetuity".
In a letter dated September I:J, 1837, it was
recorded that the Lt. Governor of X.W.F. Province
was of the view that it would be more eonformblc
with the terms of tho agreement if the all<iwanco on
Harm.rain Singh's villages (I:! 111ahal8) wern given in
the form of a remission of revenue to the amount of
one-fourth; the Jamma being fixed at Rs. li,130 instead of Rs. ::!2,940 and in the villages settled with
zamindars ( 1(3(; mahals) Harnarain Singh bo paid
annually a pension of J /-!th of the collections after
deducting tho 'L'ahsildari charge, and 011 that footing
Rs. 30,612-8-0 bo granted to Harnarain Singh.
By
letter dated October 19, 18:17, from the Secretary to
the Lt. Governor, N.\V.F. Province, the Secretary to
the Board of Rcyenue was informed that tho
Lt. Governor had resolved to adopt the Board's
recommendation
made
in their
letter
dated
September 26, 183i, and to allow li'lrnarain Singh
I/4th of the not collection'! after duducting the expenses
of
the
Tahaildari
establishment i. e.,
Hs. 30, 61::!-8-0 out of a net Jamma of thll villages
amounting to Hs. 1,28,960. About the 12 mahals
settled with Harnarain Singh, the allowance wa.s
directed to be made in the form of a remission of
,.
f'
I /4th of rovonuo assessed. .Finally, by letter dated
September 14, 1838, from the Secretary to the Sadar
Board of Revenue to the Officiati.nμ:
Commissioner
5th Division, Banaras, it WU.'! statod that "what the
Government intended to givo is a clear fourth of the _,,.
net revonue of the Pargana to the Muqurrureedar as
pension". The Jetter further stated.
\
-·
-
•
\.
).
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUitT REPORTS
219
"2. The arrangement of paying a portion
of that pension by a remission of revenue on
certain
mauzas settled, as was supposed,
directly with the muqurrureedar was propoaod
by the Board and allowed by Government as a
more matter of convenience to the parties.
Neither Government nor Board intended to
alienate any part of the muqurrureedar's pension to his son or to any other person.
3. If the mauzas supposed to have been
settled with the muqurrureedar for his own
use and behalf, turn out to be held by another
person on a distinct interest, it will be necessary, the Board observe to modifythe arrangement previously allowed and to collect the
whole assessed revenue of those mauzas as of
all others; and when the same shall have been
collected to pay the Muqurrureedar his clear
fourth of the net collections.
4.
As however, these mauzas were sattled by the Government with the i\Iuqurrureedar
his responsibility for the J umma any portion of
revenue which may fall in arrear by person or
the arrangement made by him, or of the domestic differences of his family, must be made
good from his pension, before the assignment
of the fourth share of the net collections can
have effect.
5. The
Board
must con8ider
the
Muqurrureedar as the owner of these villages
during his life. With his family arrangements
they have no concern. But if it will be his
wish that the whole revenue be collected from
these villages, and one-fourth be returned to
him from the treasury instead of receiving
that fourth in the shape of a remission, he
is at liberty to make the election.
6. He is also the Board remark of course
at liberty to cause those mauza2
to be
1961
Slate of
Utfar Pradesh
v.
Kunwar
Sri Trivi-kram
Na~ain Singh
Shah J.
1961
Statt-of
Uttar Praduh
v.
Kt.1nwar
Sri Trivib'anl
1'·arain Sing!~
Shah J.
220
St:PHEllfE COURT REFOHTS
[HG2]
t ranl!fcrred or sold in tlic case of arrear; but his
responsibility for the a•sesscd Jununa as J!xed
by tho act of settlement will remain the tiamo.
It is manifest that the recommendatium• made
bv the Board of Revenue and tho Secretary t.o
tfie Go\·ernmcnt. in the lengthy correspondence
Y:1ricd from time to time, but in the final lcttRr
it appears to have Leen made clear that an amount
equivalent to I /4th of the net revenue of the IGG
mahals Lo given as pemion annually to the jagirdar.
A formal sanad, though contemplated, was, it
appears, never issued, but it is common ground that
the allowance was paid through the Treasury Office
of the Collector of Ghaziporo year aftn year since
the year J 838 to Harnarain Singh am! his descendants. This allowance to tho jagirdar of "Syudpore
Bhottrec" was called sometimes in tho revenue
papers "malikana" sometimes "pension" and sometimes a
"share in the revenue of tho entire
"
pargana .
In l!l51, tho U. P. Legislature enacted the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of HJiJl, and relying upon s. 6(b) of tho
Act, tho revenue authorities stopped payment of tho
allowance to the descendants of Harnarain Singh.
The respondent who is a descendant of Harnarai.n
Singh then presented Writ Petition No. 464 of 1954
in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a
I
writ in the nature of mandamns calling upon tho
<
State of Uttar Pradoah to forbear from interfering
l
with his right to regular payment of the "pension,
allowance or malikana" payable in lieu of the hereditary estate of Harnarain Singh in respect of parganas ''Syudpore Bhottree" and for an order for pay·
ment of tho "pension, allowance or malikana" as it
fo II due. Tho respondent claimed inter alia that by
virtue of the notification issued under s. 4 of the
Aot, his right to receive tho pension did not cease,
_,,,. ·
especially when the scheme of tho Act and tho
principles of assessment did not contemplate payment
-I
-···-"'<-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
221
of compensation in respect of extinction of his right
to the allowance, and that in any event, there was no
nexus between the pension and the estates sought
to be acquired under Act 1 of 1951 or the zamindari system songht to be abolished, because the
pension was neither land nor immovable property
nor an estate within the meaning of the Act and
being merely compensation payable to him in lieu
of the rights of his ancestors over the estates comprised within the pargana "Syudpore Bhettree", it
was not liable to vest in the State. The High Court
rejected certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition (which objections are not
canvassed in this appeal) and held that the right of
the respondent to receive Rs. 36,330 per annum was
not an "estate" within the meaning of the Act and
that the right was not acquired under the Act nor
did compensation fall to be paid for the same. In
the view of the High Court, under s. 6 of the Act,
only the rights of the intermediaries in respect of
land revenue of the lands comprised in the estate
were extinguished and that the rights of third parties under a contract 'with the State not relating to
the rights and privileges of intermediaries, tenants
or other persons having interest in land were not
effected, and the predecessors in interest of the
respondent having been granted an allowance annually in lieu of abandonment of the right to realise
land revenue, the arrangement did not come to an
·end because of the "abolition of the zamindari"
under the Act.
The question which falls to be determined in
this appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, is whether the right of the respondent to receive the allowance under the arrangement of the year l 838 was
extinguished as a consequence ensuing from , the
vesting of the "Syudpore Bhettree" parganas in the
State of Uttar Pra.desh under s. 4 of the Act.
By the preamble, it was recited that the Act
was enacted to provide for· the abolition of the
19/JI
State of
Uttar Pradeah
v.
Kunwar
Sri Trivilcram
Narain Singh
Shah J.
1961
Stale of
Uttar Praduh
v.
Kurru·ar
s,.~ Trivil.-ram
,1.VQrain Sirigh
Shah J.
..
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
Zaminrlari system which involved intermediaries
between the tiller of the soil and the State and for the
acquisition of their rights, title and interest and to r(}-
form the Law rclati1ig to land tenure consequent
upon Rnch abolition and acquisition and to make
provision for other matters connected therewith. Bv
s.3 (8} which was retrospectively amended by Act 14
of l !l;i8, "estate" was defined as meaning the area.
inclurl<·cl under onP <'nt.ry in any of tho regist€rs
<lPscribccl in els. (a) to (d) and in 80 far as it relates
to a pPrmanent tenure-holder in any register described in cl. (c) ofR. 32 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
l!lOl as it Rtood immr<liately prior to the coming
into force of tho A<'t or subject to the restrictions
mentioner] with n·spcct to tho register described in
P 1. ( c) in any of the registers maintained under any
cth~r Act, Rule, Regulation or Order relating to tho
prcpa ration or maintenance of record of rights in
force at any time and included share in or of an
estate. "Intermediary" was defined as meaning with
r<'fcrpnco to any est.ate, a proprietor, under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, thckadar, permanent lesaoos in
A vadh and pcrm1i11ent tcnurfl hol<ler of such est.a to
or part thereof. "Land.. w!l8 defined as meaning,
Pxcept in B8. 143 and 144, as land hold or occupied
for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture
or animal husbandr~· which inrluded pisciculturo and
poultry farming. By s.4, provision was made for vesting of estat<'s in the State of l:ttar Pradesh. By
sub·s.( l ), it was cnnctcd, insofar as it is material,
that the State Go1·ermnent may by notification
declare that as from n date to be specified, all estates ~ituato in Uttar PradPsh shall va~t in tho State
and from the <late so specified, all such estates shall
stand transferred to and vest, except as provided in
the Act, in the State free from all encumbrances.
Sect.ion G prod<lecl for the consequences of an estate
in the State. On the publication of a notification
undnr s. 4 of the Act, notwithstanding anything
contained in anv contract or dC>cumont or in any
other law for tho time being in forco and save as
.!Z 5 ·-
-
-· 1'i-. --
...
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
223
otherwise provided in the Act, the consequences set
forth in els.( a) to (j) of s. 6 were to ensue in the
area to which the notification related. By ol.(a),
all rights, title and interest of intermediaries in
every estate in such area and in the sub-soil in such
estate including rights, if any, in mines and minerals
ceased and vested in the State. Clause (b) on
which the dispute primarily turns, provided :
"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."
By cl. ( o), all rents, local rates and sayar in
respect of any estate or holding therein for any
period after the date of vesting and which, but for
tho acquisition, would be payable to an intermediary, vested in and became payable to the State
Government and not to the intermediary; and
where under an agreement or oontract made before ·
the date of vesting any rent, oess, local rate or
....
sayar for any period after that date ha:l been paid
to or compounded or released by an intermediary,
the same. notwithstanding the agreement or the
contract, became recoverable by the State Government from the intermediary. By els. ( d) and\ o), liability of intermediaries in respect of any estate incur-
'
red for a.ny period prior to the date of vesting
).
remained enforceable. By cl. (f), the interest of
intermediaries in any estate was exempt from
attachment or sale in execution of any decree or
other process of any court and any attachment
existing at the date of vesting or any order for
attachment passed before such date, subject to the
provisions of s. 73 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, ceased to be in force.
By cl. (g), mortgages
. ..._with possession on any estat" or part of an estate on
the date immediately preceding the date of vesting
were to be deemed to have been substituted by
simple mortgages without prejudice to the rights
1~6
State of
Uttar Pradesh
v.
• Kunwar
Sri Trivikram
N a'1'ain Singh
Shah J.
1961
S14k of
Uttar Pracitah
v.
Kunwa1'
Sri T1'iti1kram
Narain Sing!~
~·hah J.
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl962J
of tho State Government. By cl. (h), no claim or
liability enforceable or incurred before the date of
v 0 sting by or against an intermediary for any
mon<'y charged on or secured by a mortgage of an
estate or part thereof was, except as provided in
73 of the Transfer of Property Act,
to
be
enforceable ag11inst his interest in the estate.
By cl. ( i), all snits and proceedings of tho
nature
to
bo rrescribcd pending in any court
at
tho date o
vesting and all
proceedings
upto any decree or order passed in any such
suit or proceeding previous to the date of vesting
wNe stayed.
By cl. (j), all mahals and their subdi\·i~ions <;xisting on tho dare immediately preceding; tho date of V<'sting and all engagements for tho
payment of land revenue or rent by a proprietor,
under-proprietor,
S\lb-proprictor,
co-sharer,
or
lambardar as such determined and ceased to be in
force.
Section 37 t-0 40 of the Act provided for the
preparation of tho Compensation Assessment Roll
•
of intermediaries as r<'gpects mahals and for pre-
-f
pa.ration of gross n.sscts of mahals. It was on tbi.s
Compensation Assessment Roll that the <YJmpensation pay:Lble for Joss of interest of tho intermedia-
-
ries was to be computed and paid. Section 42
,,.,....
provided for computation of gross assets of an
intermediary and s. 44 for computation of the net
assets of an intermediary. Section 45 proytdcd that
}
in the case of proprietors to w horn s. 78 of the U.P.
!,and Hevenue Act, 1901 applied or who were assignees of land revenue whose names wcrf' recorded
in the record of rights maintained under els. (a) to
(d) of s. 32 of the said Act, under-proprietors, subproprietors, permanent tenure-holders· and permanent lessees in A"adh, tho provisions of 118. 39 to 44
were to apply subject to such incidental changes~· .,,
and modifications as may be prescribod and the"<::::::.
groas assets and not assets of such intermediaries
were to be computed accordingly.
...
\
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
225
/' r
By the definition, in s. 3 ( 8) of the Act an
"estate" is an area included under one entry in the
registers described in els. (a) to ( d) of the Land
Revenue Act. The High Court upheld the contention of the respondent that allowance paid to him
could not be regarded as an "estate". That view
is not challenged before this Court by counsel for
the State of Uttar Pradesh. The right to receive
the allowance of Rs. 30,612-8-0 from the Government under the arrangement cannot, in the absence
of an express provision to that effect, be called "an
area included under one entry in any of the registers" described in the various clauses. The first part
of s. tl(b) does not therefore assist the claim made
by the State .
..
•
But of the 12 mahals the respondent was &
proprietor : the land of the mabals was "estate"
within the meaning of s. 3(8) of the Act and by
s. 4, the right of the respondent in that estate
stood vested in and transferred to the State. It is
true that by the arrangement of the ye11.r 1838,
i
confirming the earlier compromise, remission of
~ %% was granted to the respondent's predecessors
in respect of payment of land revenue. If the right
of the respondent in the 12 mahals ceased, the right
to remission could not be converted into a positive
right to receive the amount thereef, notwithstanding the extinction of his right in those 12 mahals.
>
The right to remission of land revenue was a right
;.
in respect of land revenue in the estate which stood
vested in the State. The letters dated Septembf'r
13, 1837, October 19, 1837 and June 15, 1838 make
it abundantly clear that the difference of Rs. 5710
between the amount. originally assessed and the
.Jarnma recoverable was to be remission of revenue.
The right of the respondent to the 12 mahals was
transferred to the State by virtue of the notification
•
.:i...._ under s. 4,
and the
consequences set out in
s11b-s. (b) of s. 6 relating to those 12 mahals ensued.
We are therefore unable to agree with the
JP61
State of
Uttar Prade•h
v.
Kunwar
Sri Trivil<ram
.1Varain Singh
Shah J.
226
-. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
19a1
High Court that fur the amount cf Rs. 6710 which
;:;;;;;j
was treated as remission, the respondent was entiUttar Praduh
tied to obtain relief on the footing that that right
Ku:"war
_____ was not affected by the issue ·of the' notification
Sri Tri•ikram \ : ·under s. 4 of the Act.
}farain Singh ·
·
•
· ·The claim of the respondent in respect of the
Shah J:_.
· - allowanc'e granted as consideration for abandonment
'of the right to 166 mahals rests on a finner ground.
It is true that this allowance was computed as I/4th
share of the revenue assessed · on the 166 -mahals.
B_ut the respondent under the arrang{ment. has no -
interest in the land of the 166 mahals or in the land
revenue payable in respect- thereof. -By the order
of the Government, the Tight of Sheo Narain Singh
to -the entire pargana "Syudpore ~- Bhettiee" was
resumed. • Sheo Narain Singh challengeil the autho- _
ritv of the Government to resunie his ·interest in
the Jagir -and ! dispute pending in the civil' court
was compromised on the terms which were finalised
in the year 1838 whereby 'Harnarain Singh arid his
decendants - were-given an allowance in amount
cqu1i.l to_ I/4th of tho net revenue of the 166 mahals.
Because the annual allowance is equal to a fourth
share of the net revenue of the maha!S, the right
of the respondent does not acquire the character 'of
an interest in land or in land revenue .. Under the
arrangement, the e'ntiro land reven!le was to be
. collected by the Government -and in the collection
. Harnarain Singh and his' descendants had· no illterest or- obligation. :As- a consideration for relin~
quishing the right to the land and the rcvemie thereof, the respondent and his ancestors were_, given an
allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0, -Tho. ·.11lowanco was
iu' a serne related to the· land revenue assessed on
, , the land,' i.e., it was fued as a 'percentage of- the
lal)-d revenue : but the pe-rccntage was nierely a
measure, and indicated the source' of the right in
lieu of which the allowance was given. The amount
is ·described as "pension" in the letters dated
September 14, 1838, July 7, 1837 and June 15, 1838.
The words used in cl. (b) are undoubtedly wide;
-
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
227
1.ny right to a grant which has. relation to land
or land revenue would be determined by the rmeration of that clause.
But the allowance to Harnarain Singh was not in respect ofland or its revenue:
it was granted as consideration for settlement of a
claim litigated in a civil court relating to that land.
The primary object of the legislature, as set
{out in the preamble of the Act, was to abolish the
zarnindari system and to acquire the rights of the
interwediaries and to pay compensation for acquisition of those rights.
By s. 4, estates in the area for
which a notification was issued, vest in the Stato
free from all encumbrances and as a consequence
of vesting, the rights of intermediaries, but not their
/pre-existing liabilities are extinguished as from the
date of vesting. Clauses (a),(c) to (f) and (h) expressly
deal with the rights and obligations of intermediaries, and the interaction thereon of the notification
of vesting. Clause (g) deals with the derivative rights
of mort.gagees of estates.
By cl. (i}, the mahals
1md sub-divisions are obliterated, and the engagements for payment of land revenue or rent by
~proprietors,
under-proprietors,
sub-proprietors,
co-sharers
and
sub-sharns cense.
There is
no express reference in s. 6 (b).
to the
right
of intermediaries ; by the first part of that clause,
the grant and confirmation of title to land in an
estate are determilled and by the second part, the
., rights and privileges in land or in the land revenue in
,.the estates are determined.
The key words of the
second part of the clause are "in respect of" indicating a direct connection between a right or privilege
and land in an estate or its revenue. The intention
of the legislature is manifestly to extinguish estates
and all derivative rights in estates and to extinguish
the interest of intermediaries between the State and
the tiller of the soil. • If the grant or confirmation
·"- ?f title is in respect of a right or privilege to land
ifr an estate or its revenue, it must determine under
cl. (b) ; but a right to receive an allowance which is
1961
State of
Ultar Pradesh
v.
Kunwar
Sri Tri vikram
Narain Singri.
ShahJ
1961
Stale of
Uttar Pra1/1!1h
v.
/(1111wr1r
Sri ·rririkram
}forain s:ngh
SM!~ J,
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962)
granted in considc~ation of extinction of a right t<JI
-
hnrl or land revonuo does not., hv tho force of
cl. (h) determine. Tho allowance has i10t the quality
of land or land re\·cnue: its qwrntum only ~as
measured by c<Jnating it with a fourth share in the
net rev(•nue of a part of land which \\·as the subject
mattBr of the suit in which th<' arrnn!!<'ID<·nt for
paymf-nt of the allowance was mack.
·
1
A bsrnce of a proYision in the Art for pa~ 1mnt
of compensation for a right such as th<' one rlaimed
by the rPspondent strongly supports tlH• pica that
..
tho right is not intended to he acquirr<l or extinguish!'d. Section 3i to 44 deal with the as;;nssment
of compe1rnation to be
paid to internwdiarics.
Compensation Assessment Roll of intcrmediaril's in•,
respect of the mahals has to he prcparccl and detail- •
ed inHtructions in that bchal fa re contnine<! in ss. 3!l
to 44.
Bys. 45, in computing the gross m1scts and
net assets of proprietors who arc assignees of Janel
revenue and of under-proprietors, Hub-proprietors,
permanent t-Onure-holdcrn and permanent lessees in
Avaclh ss. 39 to 44 of the Act arc applicahh subject
to such modifieations and inciclcntal changes as may.,,.-
he prc1\arihecl. It is common ground that s.78 of
the U. P. Lam] Ro\·enue Act has no application to
"Syudpore Rhettrcc" pargana.
To proprietors who
:ire assignees of land re\·enuc and whose names arc
rccord<>d in the record of rights maintained under
s.3::? els. (a) to (d), the provisions of >S.39 to 44
may undoubtedly apply subject to modifications a.s '
may he prescribed, ancl computation of their gro~/
and ll<'l assets may be made according!.\'.
But. the
respondent is not an assignee of land rnn•nne whose
name i~ so recorded in the re<'ord of rights nor is he
qua tho allowance an under-proprietor, sub-prnprietor, permanent tenure.holder or permanent lessee.
Section 45 is a machinery pro\·ision : it clocs not
purport to extend the field of s.6 hy prescribing,,
coHsequences which are not. incorporated in tl!Al
s0 ction. There is in s.45 nothing to warrnnt the
-i11hmission of counsel for tho State that rightJi of a
-
-
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
229
~and-holder to receive allowances from the Government are extinguished even without compensation,
merely because he was an assignee of land revenue
of some land or was a proprietor, sub-proprietor,
permanent tenure-holder or permanent lessee in
respect of other land in A vadh. The scheme for
payment of compens'ltion prescribed by ss. 39 to 44
r is extended to amongst others, proprietors of land
who are assignees of land revenue whose names are
recorcfod in tho record of rights maintained under
els. (a) to (d) of s.32: but, a person receiving an
allowance from the State of the character received
by the respondent is not a proprietor who is an
assignee of land revenue, and in any event, if his
!name is not entered in the revenue record under
" els. (a) to (d) of s.32, the provisions relating to
computation of gross and net assets will not apply
to him. Absence of a provision in the Act for
awarding compensation to persons holding interest
such as the respondent has, strongly supports the
view that such interest was not to be extinguished
by the operation of s.6(b) of Act 1 of 1951.
--;.-
We accordingly hold that the High Court was
right in granting the application preferred by the
respondent insofar as it related to the allowance
of Rs. 30,612-13-0 granted as a consideration for
extinction of the right of Harnarain Singh to 166
mahals : but for reasons already stated, we are
1 unable to agree with the High Court that the
) respondent was entitled to receive in respect of the
12 mahals the land revenue which was remitted.
The order passed by the High Court will therefore
be modified and the petition of the respondent in
so far as it deals with remission of land revenue in
respect of the 12 mahals of "Syudpore Bhettree"
will stand dismissed. The order of the High Court
in respect of the allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0 will
WJltand confirmed. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal will stand dismissed with costs.
Appeal d~Bmi&Bed.
1961
State of
Uttar Pradesh
v.
Kum.var
Sri Trivikram
Narain Singh
ShahJ.