State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Sri
Trivikram Narain Singh  INSC 250 (22 August 1961)
CITATION: 1963 AIR 799 1962 SCR (3) 213
CITATOR INFO :
R 1965 SC1836 (7,8) R 1969 SC 164 (15) D 1978
SC1450 (11) R 1985 SC1582 (3)
Zamindari Abolition--Pension paid in lieu of
compensation for loss of Tehsildari rights and proprietory rights--If interest
in land--U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901(U.P. 3 of 1901), s.32, cls. (a) to (d)--U.
P. Zamindari Abolition & Land, Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P.1 of 1951), ss.3(8),
By the order of the then Government the right
of S, an ancestor of the respondent, to the entire parganas "Syudpore
Bhettree" was resumed. S challenged in a civil 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 proprietary rights and
only on 12 mahals the proprietary right of S had been established. The dispute
pending in the Civil Court was compromised, and the terms were finalised in
1838 with H, son of S (who had died in the meantime). The terms, inter alia,
were that for 214 166 mahals settled with the Zamindars, H, and his heirs in
perpetuity, be paid annually a pension of 1/4th of the collections after
deducting the Tehsildari charges and for 12 mahals settled with H allowance be
made in the form of remission of 1/4th of the revenue assessed. The Government
under the settlement intended to give a clear fourth of the net revenue of the
parganas as pension. The allowance and/ or pension was paid through Treasury
Office year after year from 1838 to H and his descendants.
In 1951 the U.P. Legislature enacted the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951, and under
s.6(b) of the Act the revenue authorities stopped payment of the 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 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.
Held, that the right to receive the allowance
of Rs.30,612-8-0 for 166 mahals from the Government under the, arrangement was
not in respect of land or its revenue; it was granted as consideration for
settlement of a claim litigated in a civil court relating to that land, and
could not 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 various clauses, (a) to (d) of s.32 of the U.P. Land 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 which 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
but a right to receive an allowance granted
in consideration of extinction 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 quantum only was measured by equating it with a fourth share
in the net revenue of a part of land which was the subject matter of the suit
in which arrangement for payment of the allowance was made. A person receiving
an allowance from 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) of s.32 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901, the provisions
relating to computation of gross and net assets will not apply to him.
The Act does not intend to extinguish the
right to receive allowance granted in 21 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 remission could not be converted into a positive right to
receive the amount thereof.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 529 of 1958.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
March 6,1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 464 of 1954.
C. B. Agwarwala, K. B. Asthana and C. P. Lal,
for the appellants.
M. C. 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. The 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 his 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 216 about the year
1800, and his son Sheo Narain Singh succeeded to the jagir. In the enquiry held
by the Collector of Ghazipore into the proprietary right claimed by the
jagirdar under Regulation 11 of 1819, it was declared that the grant to Ousan
Singh was for life only and did not confer a heritable or transferable tenure
in the parganas. The decision of the Collector was confirmed by the
Commissioner of Bihar and Banaras, subject to the recommendation that Sheo
Narain Singh should be maintained in possession of the parganas for life. The
Government then directed in 1828 that a detailed settlement be made with the
village zamindars, and offered Sheo Narain Singh allowance for life of one-half
of the revenue to be assessed on the pargana.
Sheo Narain Singh declined to accept the
offer and commenced an action in the civil court contesting the validity of the
order resuming the jagir. The Government considered the question afresh, and
resolved to revise the order of resumption and in July 1830, ordered that Sheo
Narain Singh be considered Tahsildar of parganas "Syudpore Bhettree,"
and that the office be treated as hereditary devolving upon the descendants of
the jagirdar and held so long as the incum- bent did not infringe the privileges
found to belong to other classes at the time of formation of the settlement.
Sheo Narain Singh died before the resolution
of the Government was communicated to him and he was succeeded by his son
Harnarain Singh who withdrew the suit and signed a compromise incorporating the
terms of the resolution.
On August 19, 1831, the Secretary to the
Government addressed to the Agent of the Governor-General at Banaras a letter
requesting the Secretary to the Governor-General in the Pension department to
prepare the necessary documents relating to the grant of a sanad specifying,
that parganas "Syudpore Bhettree" were granted on an
"istmrar" tenure to Harnarain Singh for his own benefit and of his
heirs and successors in perpetuity on condition of their 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 Raid parganas shall be fully enquired into
and in the event of any such claims being established to the satisfaction of
the Government, the village or villages forming the subject of the claim shall
be considered distinct from and independent of the grant and that a settlement
shall be made with the proprietors as in other cases, that the office of
Tahsildar shall belong to Harnarain Singh and be hereditary 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 proprietors shall
continue to pay the Jamma which may be assessed on their villages through
Harnarain Singh or such other member of the family as the Government may
appoint, provided that 1/4th 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 proposal calling upon Harnarain 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. 1,28.1960.
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
218 the office of Tahsildar on the terms offered by the Government, the Board
of Revenue suggested that Harnarain Singh should receive 1/4th of the net
collections after deducting from the gross collection the cost of Tahsil
establishment thereby giving him an income of Rs. 36,322-8-
0. The Board of Revenue recommended that a
sanad be issued under the authority of the Lt. Governor conferring "the
pension of Rs. 36,322-8-0 on Babu Harnarain Singh and his heirs in
In a letter dated September 13, 1837, it was
recorded that the Lt. Governor of N.W.F. Province was of the view that it would
be more conformable with the terms of the agreement if the allowance on
Harnarain Singh's villages (12 mahals) were given in the form of a remission of
revenue to the amount of one-fourth, the Jamma being fixed at Rs. 17,130
instead of Rs. 22,940 and in the villages settled with zamindars (166 mahals)
Harnarain Singh be paid annually a pension of 1/4th of the collections after
deducting the Tahsildari charge, and on that footing Rs. 30,612-8-0 be granted
to Harnarain Singh. By letter dated October 19, 1837, from the Secretary to the
Lt. Governor, N.W.F. Province, the Secretary to the Board of Revenue was
informed that the Lt. Governor had resolved to adopt the Board's recommendation
made in their letter dated September 26, 1837, and to allow Harnarain Singh
1/4th of the not collections after deducting the, expenses of the Tahsildari
establishment i. e., Rs. 30, 612-8-0 out of a net Jamma of the villages
amounting to Rs.
1,28,960. About the 12 mahals settled with
Hamarain Singh, the allowance was directed to be made in the form of a
remission of 1/4th of revenue assessed. Finally, by letter dated September 14,
1838, from the Secretary to the Sadar Board of Revenue to the Officiating
Commissioner 5th Division, Banaras, it was stated that "'what the
Government intended to give is a clear fourth of the net revenue of the Pargana
to the Muqurrureedar as pension". The letter further stated.
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 proposed by the Board and
allowed by Government as a mere matter of convenience to the parties.
Neither Government nor Board intended to
alienate any part of the 'muqurrureedar's pen- sion to his son or to any other
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 modify the 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
4. As however, these mauzas were settled by
the Government with the Muqurrureedar his responsibility for the Jumma any
portion of revenue which may fall in arrear by person or the arrangement made
by him, or of the domes- tic 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 consider 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 tha t 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 mauzas to be 220 transferred or sold in the case of
arrear, but his responsibility for the assessed Jumma as fixed by the act of
settlement will remain the same.
It is manifest that the recommendations made
by the Board of Revenue and the Secretary to the Government in the lengthy
correspondence varied from time to time, but in the final letter it appears to
have been made clear that an amount equivalent to 1/4th of the net revenue of
the 166 mahals be given as pension 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 Ghazipor year after year since
the year 1838 to Harnarain Singh and his descendants. This allowance to the
jagirdar of "Syudpore Bhettree" was called sometimes in the revenue
papers "malikana" sometimes pension" and sometimes a "share
in the revenue of the entire pargana'.
In 1951, the U. P. Legislature enacted the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951, and relying
upon s. 6(b) of the Act, the revenue authorities stopped payment of the
allowance to the descendants of Harnarain Singh. The respondent who is a
descendant of Harnarain Singh then presented Writ Petition No. 464 of 1954 in
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ in the nature of mandamus
calling upon the State of Uttar Pradesh to forbear from interfering 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 Bhettree" and for an order for payment of the
"pension, allowance or malikana" as it fell due. The respondent
claimed inter alia that by virtue of the notification issued under s. 4 of the
Act, his right to receive the pension did not cease, especially when the scheme
of the Act and the principle of assessment did not contemplate payment 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 so-tight 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 "Syndpore 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 riot
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 1838 was
extinguished as a consequence ensuing from the vesting of the "Sudpore Bhettree"
parganas in the State of Uttar Pradesh under s. 4 of the Act.
By the preamble. it was recited that the Act
was enacted to provide for the abolition of the 222 zamindari 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 reform the Law
relating to land tenure consequent upon such abolition and acquisition and to
make provision for other matters connected therewith. By s.3 (8) which was
retrospectively are ended by Act 14 of 1958, ,'estate" was defined as
meaning the area included under one entry in any of the registers described in
cls. (a) to (d) and in so far as it relates to a permanent tenure-holder in any
register described in el. (e) of s. 32 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act 1901 as it
stood immediately prior to the coming into force of the Act or subject to the
restrictions mentioned with respect to the register described in el. (e) in any
of the registers maintained under any other Act, Rule, Regulation or Order
relating to the preparation 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 reference to any estate, a proprietor, under-proprie-
tor, sub-proprietor, the kadar, permanent lessees in Avadh and permanent tenure
holder of such estate or part thereof.
"Land" was defined as meaning,,
except in ss. 143 and 144, as land held or occupied for purposes connected with
agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which included pisciculture and
poultry farming. By s.4, provision was made for vesting of estates in the State
of Uttar Pradesh.
By sub-s.(1), it was enacted, insofar as it
is material, that the State Government may by notification declare that as from
a date to. be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the
State and from the date so specified, all such estates shall stand transferred
to and vest, except as provided in the Act, in the State free from all
encumbrances. Section 6 provided for the consequences of an estate in the
State. On the publication of a notification under s. 4 of the Act,
notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other
law for the time being in force- and, nave as 223 otherwise provided in the
Act, the consequences set forth in cls.(a) to (j) of s. 6 were to ensue in the
area to which the notification related. By cl.(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. (c), 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 the 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 contract made before the date of vesting any rent,
cess, local rate or sayar for any period after that date had 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 cls. (d) and (e), liability of intermediaries in respect of
any estate incurred for any period prior to the date of vesting remained
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.
(a), mortgages with possession on any estate 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 224 of the
State Government'. By el. (h), no claim or liability enforceable or incurred
before the date of vesting by or against an intermediary for any money 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 against his
interest, in the estate. By el. (i), all suits and proceedings of the nature to
be prescribed pending in any court at the date of vesting and.' all proceedings
upto any, decree or order passed in any such suitor proceeding previous to the,
date of vesting were stayed. By cl. (j), all mahals and their subdivisions
existing on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and all
engagements for the payment of land revenue or rent by a proprietor,
under-proprietor, sub-proprietor co-sharer, or lambardar as such determined and
ceased to be in force.
Section 37 to 40 of the Act provided for the
preparation of the Compensation Assessment Roll of intermediaries as respects
mahals and for preparation of gross assets of mahals. It was on this
Compensation Assessment Roll that the compensation payable for loss of interest
of the intermediaries 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 provided that in the case of
proprietors to whom s. 78 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 applied or who
were as. signers of land revenue whose. names were recorded in the record of
rights, maintained under cls.
(a) to (d) of s. 32 of the said Act,
under-proprietors, sub- proprietors, permanent tenure-holders and, permanent
lessees in Avadh, the provisions of ss. 39 to 44 were to apply subject to such
incidental changes and modifications as may he Prescribed and the gross assets
and net assets of such intermediaries were to be computed accordingly.' 225 By
the definition, in s. 3 (8) of the Act an "estate" is an area
included under one entry in the registers described in cls.(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. 6(b) does not therefore
assist the claim made by the State.
But of the 12 mahals the respondent was a
proprietor : the land of the mahals was "estate" within the meaning
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
year 1838, confirming the earlier compromise, remission of 25% as 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 thereof,
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 September 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 Jamma 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 under s. 4, and the
consequences set out in sub-s. (b) of s. 6 relating to those 12 mahals ensued.
We are therefore unable to agree with the 226
High Court that for the amount of Rs. 6710 which was treated as remissions the
respondent was entitled to obtain relief on the footing that right was not
affected by the issue of the notification under s. 4 of the Act.
The claim of the respondent in respect of the
allowance granted as consideration for abandonment of the right to 166 mahals
rests on a firmer ground. It is true that this allowance ",as computed as
1/4th share of the revenue assessed on the 166 mahals. But the respondent under
the arrangement 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 right
of Sheo Narain Singh to the entire pargana "Syudpore Bhettree" was
resumed. Sheo Narain Singh challenged the authority of the Government to resume
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 Harnaram
Singh and his descendants were given an allowance in amount equal to 1/4th of
the net revenue of the 166 mahals. Because the annual allowance is equal to a
fourth share of the net revenue of the mahals, the right of the respondent does
not acquire the character of an interest in land or in land revenue. Under the
arrangement, the entire land revenue was to be collected by the Government and
in the collection Harnarain Singh and his descendants had no interest or
obligation. As a consideration for relinquishing the right to the land and the
revenue thereof, the respondent and his ancestors were given an allowance of
Rs. 30,612-13-0. The allowance was in a sense related to the land revenue
assessed on the land, i.e., it was fixed as a percentage of the land revenue :
but the percentage was merely 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
The words used in el. (b) are undoubtedly
wide 227 any right to a grant which has relation to land or land revenue would
be determined by the operation of that clause.
But the allowance to Harnarain Singh was not
in respect of land 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 zamindari system and to
acquire the rights of the intermediaries 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 State free from all encumbrances and as a
consequence of vesting, the rights of intermediaries, but not their preexisting
liabilities are extinguished as from the date of vesting. Clauses (a),(c) to
(f) and (b) expressly deal with the rights and obligations of interme- diaries,
and the interaction thereon of the notification of vesting. Clause (g) deals
with the derivative rights of mortgagees of estates. By el. (i), the mahals and
sub- divisions are obliterated, and the engagements for payment of land revenue
or rent by proprietors, under-proprietors, sub-proprietors, co-sharers and
sub-sharers cease. 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 determined 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 of title is in respect of a right or
privilege to land in an estate or its revenue, it must determine under cl. (b)
; but a right to receive an allowance which is 228 granted in consideration of
extinction of a right to land or land revenue does not, by the force of cl. (b)
The allowance has not the quality of land or
land revenue :
its quantum only was measured by equating it
with a fourth share in the net revenue of a part of land which was the subject
matter of the suit in which the arrangement for payment of the allowance was
Absence of a provision in the Act for payment
of compensation for a right such as the one claimed by the respondent strongly
supports the plea that the right is not intended to be acquired or
extinguished. Section 37 to 44 deal with the assessment of compensation to be
paid to intermediaries. Compensation Assessment Roll of intermediaries in
respect of the mahals has to be prepared and detailed instructions in that
behalf are contained in ss. 39 to 44. By s. 45, in computing the gross assets
and net assets of proprietors who are assignees of land revenue and of
under-proprietors, sub-proprietors, permanent tenure- holders and permanent
lessees in Avadh ss. 39 to 44 of the Act are applicable subject to such
modifications and incidental changes as may be prescribed. It is common ground
that s.78 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act has no application to "Syudpore
Bhettree" pargana. To proprietors who are assignees of land revenue and
whose names are recorded in the record of rights maintained under s.32 cls. (a)
to (d), the provisions of ss-39 to 44 may undoubtedly apply subject to modifications
as may be prescribed, and computation of their gross and net assets may be made
accordingly. But the respondent is not an assignee of land revenue whose name
is so recorded in the record of rights nor is he qua the allowance an
under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, permanent tenure-holder or permanent lessee.
Section 45 is a machinery provision : it does not purport to extend the field
of s.6 by prescribing consequences which are not incorporated in that section.
There is in s.45 nothing to warrant the submission of counsel for the State
that rights of a 229 land-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 Avadh. The scheme for payment
of compensation prescribed by ss. 39 to 44 is extended to amongst others,
proprietors of land who are assignees of land revenue whose names are recorded
in the record of rights maintained under cls. (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 cls. (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 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
stand confirmed. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal will stand
dismissed with costs.