Thakur
Prasad Vs. Raj Karan & Ors [2003] Insc 135 (4 March 2003)
Syed
Shah Mohammed Quadri & Arijit Pasayat
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.866-868 OF 1984 SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.
These
appeals from various judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad arise out of the same factual
matrix and raise a common question of law viz., how are the rights of the
mortgagors and the mortgagees of the suit land affected by the provisions of
the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act? The search for the answer to
the question takes us back a century and a quarter and obliges us to examine
the nature of the tenure under different Acts. The undisputed facts giving rise
to the above question lie in a narrow compass. The object of controversy is certain
plots of land in village Chaura Kalan, Taluka Konrh, Pargana Bhadohi, District Varanasi
of the State of U.P. (hereinafter referred to in this
judgment as, 'the suit land'). In 1923 one Ram Nath Singh, who was said to be
sub-proprietor, granted the suit land as 'Krishnarpan' to one Prayag Dutt Tiwari
who passed away in 1947 leaving behind him his L.Rs. Respondent Nos.5 to 10,
who (hereinafter referred to as 'the mortgagors') executed usufructuary
mortgage in favour of Thakur Prasad and Shitla Prasad (Appellants in Civil
Appeal Nos.865-866 of 1984 - hereinafter referred to as 'the mortgagees') on
November 3, 1947. The mortgagors sold the suit land in different bits. They
sold 1/6th share in favour of the mortgagees and 1/6th share to Jadunath
(respondent in Civil Appeal No.866 of 1984). The remaining 2/3rd share in the
suit land was sold under two sale deeds in favour of Raj Karan (appellant in
Civil Appeal No.868 of 1984).
On October 7, 1960, Raj Karan, who had entered into
shoes of the mortgagors (hereinafter referred to as such in this judgment)
filed the suit, out of which these appeals arose, for ejectment of Thakur
Prasad and Shitla Prasad (mortgagees) by depositing the mortgage money. The
suit could not proceed due to the issuance of Notification of consolidation in
the said village. The case was, however, tried under Section 9 of the U.P.Consolidation
of Holdings Act by the Consolidation Officer who dismissed the suit. On appeal
by Raj Karan, the Settlement Officer decreed the suit on August 12, 1965.
The
mortgagees filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who
allowed the revision petition and restored the order of the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) on December
21, 1965. The said
order was impugned in writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by different parties. From the
judgments and orders of the High Court the above appeals came to be filed in
this Court by special leave.
Mr.E.C.Agarwala,
the learned counsel appearing for the appellants - mortgagees contended as
follows: the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the suit land was
donated by the sub-proprietor, Ram Nath Singh, in favour of Prayag Dutt Tiwari
which was not disturbed by the Maharaja of Banaras after purchasing the
village;
Prayag
Dutt Tiwari and his successors continued in possession for more than fifty
years and thus acquired the status of an owner under Section 158 of the N.W.Provinces
Tenancy Act of 1901 (later termed as the Agra Tenancy Act - for short, 'the
Agra Act'); under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Z.A.Act'), the rights of a mortgagor had
come to an end and he became entitled to recover the mortgage amount as a
simple mortgagee; however, Section 14(2) conferred the right of ownership/bhumidar
on such a mortgagor who held land as 'Sir' or under 'Khudkasht' on the date of
the mortgage but the suit land was not so held and some other mortgagees were
in possession so it could not have been under the Khudkasht of the mortgagors
on the relevant date as such their right got extinguished; the mortgagees would
have become hereditary tenant, had they deposited five times the rent but they
failed to do so and therefore Gaon Sabha became entitled to eject them under
Section 209 within three years from the date of the vesting in view of Section
210 of the Z.A.Act and Rule 338 of the U.P.Zamindari Rules read with Appendix
III (Item 30) but no suit was brought by Gaon Sabha till date and so they had
become sirdar or asami and would be deemed to be a tenant from year to year;
even assuming the mortgagors become bhumidar, they could not evict the
mortgagees after the limitation of three years as they perfected their title by
adverse possession; in the written submission it is added that the mortgagors,
not having acquired the right under Section 14(2)(a), had no right to bring the
suit for eviction.
Mr.V.K.S.Chaudhary,
the learned senior counsel appearing for the mortgagors, argued that: in the Namanzuri
village, the mortgagors could not claim any right under Section 158 of the Agra
Act; by the 1954 Notification the Z.A.Act was applied to the suit land village
duly deleting Sections 4 to 112 thereof the mortgagees were entitled only to
mortgage money which was already deposited in the court; even in the sale deed
obtained by mortgagees the position of the mortgagors as bhumidars was accepted
which could not be permitted to be denied now; the mortgagors became bhumidars
under Section 130 and under Section 133 of the Z.A.Act the mortgagees became asamis
so the suit for ejectment of the mortgagees was required to be decreed; Raj Karan
and others were given possession of the suit land by the Consolidation Officer
accepting them as bhumidars and the mortgagees' possession was confined only to
the 1/6th share which they had purchased; they could not deprive the mortgagors
of their land.
It is
a common ground that the suit land formed part of erstwhile Banaras State before its merger in the State of U.P. on January 26, 1950.
The Maharaja of Banaras was the absolute owner of the Banaras State which, it was stated, was formed out of Banaras family Domain in 1911-1912. In the Banaras State there were two types of villages called (i) Manzuri
villages and (ii) Namanzuri villages. Where a village was granted by the
Maharaja to an intermediary, it was termed as 'Manzuri' village; the other
villages in respect of which no grant was made by him were referred to as 'Namanzuri'
villages.
We
have perused a copy of the English translation of Dastur-e-Dehi (also known as
'Wajibularz') of village Chaura Kalan, a 'Manzuri' village, which was auctioned
to the Government Taluka Konrh pargana Bhadohi district Mirzapur, relating to
year 1281 F. Section 1 thereof says that the village, Abad-2 is of 'Namanzuri'
category; in regard to which it was specified that the owner and zamindar was
Maharaja Sahab Bahadur, Kashi Naresh and that the tenants of the village were
entitled to cultivate with a right to transfer their tenancy in accordance with
the custom of that locality with the exception of a sub-tenant-shikimi asami.
The Settlement Officer on the basis of village record of 1281F (1873-74) and
settlement of 1230 Fasli (1911-12) found that the village in which the suit
land was situate, was a Namanzuri village. We, therefore, proceed on that
basis.
The Z.A.Act
was enacted in 1950 but it was made applicable to different areas of the State
of U.P. in stages - first by notification issued on June 30, 1953 (referred to
as 'the 1953 Notification') to certain areas of the State and then on July 1,
1954 (referred to as, 'the 1954 Notification') to the estates owned by the
State in those areas. We shall now consider how the Notifications - the 1953 or
the 1954 - would operate in regard to the suit land village. First, we shall
refer to the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Z.A.Act which are relevant
here.
Section
1 deals with short title, extent and commencement of the Act; it has three
sub-sections.
Sub-section
(1) of Section 1 speaks of the title of the Z.A.Act and sub-section (2)
excludes certain areas from the operation of the Act but now we are not
concerned with those areas; sub-section (3) which is material reads as under :
"It
shall come into force at once except in the areas mentioned in clauses (a) to
(f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 where it shall, subject to any exception or
modification under sub-section (1) of Section 2, come into force on such date
as the State Government may by notification in the Gazette appoint, and
different dates may be appointed for different areas and different provisions
of this Act." The substance of the above provisions is that the Act shall
come into force at once (January 26, 1951) and that the State Government may
apply the whole or any provision of the Z.A. Act, subject to any exception or
modification as may be required to the areas mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of
sub-section (1) of Section 2; it is also clarified that different dates may be
appointed for different areas and different provisions of that Act.
Section
2 which speaks of modification of the Act and its application to areas or
estates specified thereunder, may be quoted :
"Modification
of the Act in its application to certain areas –
(1)
The State Government may by notification in the Gazette apply the whole or any
provision of this Act to any of the following areas or estates subject to such
exceptions or modifications, not affecting the substance, as the circumstances
of the case may require –
(a) xxx
xxx xxx
(b)
any estates or parts thereof owned by the Central Government, State Government
or any local authority,
(c) xxx
xxx xxx
(d) Pargana
Kaswar Raja of Banaras District,
(e) any
area which, on the 30th day of November, 1949, was included in –
(i) Banaras
State as defined in the Banaras State (Administration) Order, 1949, (ii)and
(iii) xxx xxx xxx *** *** ***
[(ee)]
xxx xxx xxx
(f)
xxx xxx xxx Provided that, when this Act or its provisions are so extended to
such areas or estates, with or without exceptions or modifications, so much of
any Act or Regulation in force therein as is inconsistent with this Act or the
provisions so extended or with any modifications made therein, shall be deemed
to have been repealed :
[Provided
further that a notification under this sub-section in respect of any estate or
part thereof owned by the Central Government shall not issue except in
consultation with such Government]." It is seen that under Section 2(1),
the State Government is empowered to apply the whole or any provision of the Z.A.Act
to the areas or estates enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) thereof. With
reference to each of these clauses the footnotes specify the amplitude of the
application of the Z.A.Act. Here it will be apt to read the relevant part of
the 1953 Notification by which the Z.A. Act was applied to former Banaras State.
"PART
A Application of U.P.Act I of 1951 as amended by U.P. Act XVI of 1953
----------------- NOTIFICATION No.1830/I-A - 1060-53 Dated Lucknow, June 30, 1953.
In
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (e) of sub-section
(1) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 (U.P.Act I of 1951), as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1951 (U.P.Act XVI of 1953), (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), The Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to
direct that the said Act shall apply, subject to the modifications and
amendments specified in the schedule hereto annexed to the territories of the
former Banaras State as defined in the Banaras State (Administration) Order,
1949, except the areas included on the date of this notification in a
municipality or notified area, under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1916, or a town area under the provisions of the U.P.Town Areas Act, 1914.
The Governor is further pleased to order under sub-section (3) of section 1 of
the said Act that this Act, shall come into force in the aforesaid territories
with effect from the date of this notification.
SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.
Section of No. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Extent of modification or amendment
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
2 3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 In sub-section (1) of Section 2 omit clauses (a), (d), (e) and (f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this Notification, the Z.A. Act, subject to the modifications and amendments
specified in the schedule, was applied to the former Banaras State as defined in the Banaras State (Administration) Order, 1949 except
to the areas mentioned therein which are not material here. A perusal of the
schedule shows that from the clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 2, clauses
(a), (d), (e) and (f) are omitted. Consequently, the areas mentioned in clauses
(b) and (c) only remained in sub-section (1) of Section 2 when the Z.A. Act was
applied to the former Banaras State. However, clause (c) is not relevant here.
It
follows that after application of the Z.A. Act to former Banaras State, it was
left to the State Government to extend the Z.A.Act to the area in clause (b)
which enumerates any estates or parts thereof owned by the Central Government,
State Government or any local authority. The other modifications and amendments
will be referred to as and when necessary.
Here,
it is necessary to refer to the relevant part of the 1954 Notification :
"PART
B Application of U.P. Act I of 1951 As amended by U.P.Act XVI of 1953 To the
Government Estates without Intermediaries NOTIFICATION No.3170/I-A-1002-1954
Dated Lucknow, July 1, 1954 In continuation of notification
no.1830/I-A-1060-53, dated June 30, 1953, and in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 read with sub-section
(2) of Section 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 (U.P. Act I of 1951) and of all other powers conferred in this behalf the
Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct that the said Act shall, in its
application to the former Banaras State, be subject in the case of estates
owned by the State Government and in which no intermediary had any right, title
or interest on June 30, 1953, to the modifications and amendments specified in
the schedule hereto annexed.
The
Governor is further pleased to direct that the said Act as amended and modified
shall come into force in the said States with effect from July 1, 1954.
SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.
Section of No. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Extent of modification or amendment
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
3 (1) For clause (1) the following shall be substituted ;
"(1)
'appointed day' means date of publication of this notification in the official
Gazette."
(2)
Clauses (3), (5), (6), (12), (13), (15), (17), (21), (23) and (24), shall be
deleted.
(3)
For the existing clause (28) the following shall be substituted;
"(28)
any reference to the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall be deemed to be reference to the U.P.Land
Revenue Act, 1901, as applicable to the former Banaras State as defined in the Banaras State (Administration) Order, 1949." 2 3-A After Section 3,
the following shall be added as a new Section 3-A:
"3-A.
In this Act any reference to 'date of vesting' in whatever form shall, unless
the context otherwise requires, be deemed to be reference to the appointed
day." 3 4-112 Sections 4 to 112 of Chapters II to VI in Part I shall be
deleted." [Emphasis supplied] This notification says that in its
application to the former Banaras State, the Z.A. Act shall be subject to
modifications and amendments specified in the schedule thereto in the case of
estates owned by the State Government and in which no intermediary had any
interest on June 30, 1953 (date of the 1953 Notification).
The
1954 notification was in continuation of the 1953 notification in its
application to the former Banaras State in regard to the estates owned by
the Central Government, State Government or local authority. It will not be
quite correct to say that the issue is as to which notification is applicable.
The issue is whether Chaura Kalan village was an estate owned by the State
Government and in which no intermediary had any interest on June 30, 1953. After the purchase of interest of
Ram Nath Singh by Maharaja of Banaras subject to the rent free grant of the
suit land as 'Krishnarpan' in favour of Prayag Dutt Tiwari it became a Namanzuri
village and was treated as such from 1320 F. After merger of Banaras State in the State of U.P.
the village was an estate owned by the State Government with no intermediary.
In the result though on application of the Z.A.Act to the former Banaras State
by the 1953 Notification applied the provisions of Chapters II to VI [Sections
4 to 112] were applicable, yet when by the 1954 Notification the Z.A.Act was
extended to estates owned by the Central Government, State Government or local
authority, the said provisions [Sections 4 to 112] were deleted in the
application of the Act. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr.Agrawala
that the suit land was not of the State Government as it had been given in Krishnarpan
by Ram Nath Singh to Prayag Dutt Tiwari not by the Maharaja but by the
proprietor intermediary, therefore, 1953 Notification would directly apply and
also the reasoning of the Deputy Director. We find considerable force in the
submission of Mr.Chaudhary that the Z.A.Act was made applicable to the former Banaras
State by the 1953 Notification duly retaining clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section
(1) of Section 2; and as the State was the sole proprietor of all the villages
comprised in the erstwhile Banaras State, (since the former Banaras State was
the proprietor of all the lands in that State, except the private properties of
the Maharaja as described in the instrument of accession) the Z.A.Act was
extended to estates or parts thereof owned by the State Government or any local
authority by the 1954 Notification.
Admittedly,
Prayag Dutt Tiwari was the original rent-free grantee of the suit land but the
grant was neither at the pleasure of the grantor nor for the performance of any
specific service whether religious or secular. It was otherwise also not a
conditional grant. Therefore, the grant was not resumable under Section 154 of
the Agra Act. Section 158 of the Agra Act confers proprietory rights on
rent-free tenure holder. Section 158 reads as follows:
"158.
Land not liable to resumption under Section 154 and which has been held rent-
free for fifty years and by two successors to the original grantee, and land
which was acquired in perpetuity in consideration of the loss or surrender of a
right previously vested in the grantee, or by a written instrument and for a
valuable consideration, shall be deemed to be held in proprietory right, and
the court shall declare the holder of such land to be the proprietor thereof,
and to be liable to pay the revenue thereon, and shall determine the revenue
payable by him." A perusal of this section shows that to invoke the said
section the following conditions must be satisfied:
(1) the
land shall not be resumable under Section 154;
(2) the
land should have been held rent-free for fifty years and by two successors to
the original grantee; and
(3) the
land should have been acquired in perpetuity in consideration of the loss or
surrender of a right previously vested in the grantee or by a written
instrument and for valuable consideration. If the afore- mentioned requirements
are satisfied, the land shall be deemed to be held in proprietory right and the
holder of the land was entitled to declaration from the court to that effect
and would also be liable to pay revenue thereon as determined by the court. The
expression 'rent-free grantee' is defined in sub-section (8) of Section 4 of
the Agra Act. It is an inclusive definition and includes a person who holds
land on service tenure. Having regard to above requirements of Section 158 of
the Agra Act, in the absence of any finding with regard to those requirements,
it is not possible to accept the contention of the mortgagees that the
mortgagors have become proprietors of the suit land under Section 158 of the
Agra Act.
The
position that would obtain on application of the Z.A. Act to the Banaras State
under the 1953 Notification has been discussed above. To the areas to which the
Z.A.Act was applied by the 1953 Notification, Sections 4 to 112 thereof among
others would apply.
Section
4 vests in the State all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh as from the date to
be specified by the State Government. Section 6 speaks of consequences of such
vesting. Among them is the consequence that every mortgage with possession
existing on any estate or part thereof on the date immediately preceding the
date of vesting was substituted by a simple mortgage, without prejudice to the
rights of the State Government under Section 4. Section 14 deals with the
rights of the mortgagor and the mortgagee in an estate in possession of a
mortgagee with possession. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 provides that subject
to the provisions of sub-section (2), a mortgagee in possession of an estate or
share therein shall, with effect from the date of the vesting, cease to have
any right to hold or possess any such land in such estate. In other words the
right of the possessory mortgagee to hold or possess the mortgaged land came to
an end. However, sub-section (2) says, where the mortgaged land was in the
personal cultivation of the mortgagee on the date immediately preceding the
date of vesting, the following two consequences will follow: (1) if the
mortgaged land was sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the
mortgage, then it will be treated as sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor or his
legal representative for purposes of working out the rights under Section 18
thereof; and (2) if it was not sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of
the mortgage, the mortgagee is conferred with a right (for purposes of Section
19) to become the hereditary tenant thereof provided he pays to the State
Government, within six months from the date of the vesting, an amount equal to
five times the rent calculated at hereditary rates applicable on the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting.
But if
the mortgagee fails to pay the amount within the afore-mentioned period, he
loses all rights in the mortgaged land and it shall be deemed to be a vacant
land and the mortgagee shall be liable to be ejected on the suit of the Gaon Sabha
or the Collector under Section 209 as if he were a person in possession thereof
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. This section
(Section 14) contains two explanations but they are not relevant for the
present discussion. In passing we may note that Section 18 is a deeming
provision. It says that all lands, subject to the provisions of Sections 10, 15,
16 and 17 shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government, inter alia,
with an intermediary in possession of such land as Sir or Khudkasht, who shall
be entitled to retain possession as a Bhumidar thereof. Section 19 is also a
deeming provision. It says that all land held or deemed to have been held on
the date immediately preceding the date of vesting by any person as, inter alia,
a hereditary tenant shall except as provided in Section 18(2) be entitled to
take or retain possession as a sirdar thereof.
In the
instant case, it has already been mentioned above that the suit land was
neither sir nor khudkasht of the mortgagors on the date of the mortgage in
question as it was in possession of some other mortgagees (Ram Khelawan and Ram
Saran Singh) on that date. Under the said provisions the mortgagors could not
be said to have acquired the Bhumidari rights. It may also be noted that the
mortgagees failed to avail of the benefit of Section 14 of the Z.A.Act as they
did not deposit with the State Government an amount equal to five times the
rent within six months from the date of vesting. Consequently, the mortgagees
who acquired no right under Section 14(2) read with Section 19 became liable to
be evicted either by the Gaon Sabha or by the Collector under Section 209 of
the Z.A. Act. In the light of the above discussion, it is difficult to accept
the plea of the mortgagees that their possession became adverse to that of the
mortgagors. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Balwant
& Ors. vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. [AIR 1975 Allahabad
295] was a case of the mortgagor being a Bhumidar. It is, therefore, not on the
point.
However,
the germane question is : did Section 14 apply to the suit land? Inasmuch as
the village Chaura Kalan, Taluka Konrh, Pargana Bhadohi, District Varanasi of
the State of U.P, was a Namanzuri village and consequently the State Government
became the owner thereof on the merger of the Banaras State with the U.P.
State, the estate in the village was owned by the State of U.P. It has already
been noticed above that Z.A. Act was made applicable to the estates owned by
the State Government in the former Banaras State by the 1954 Notification. The
Z.A. Act was applied to the estate owned by the State Government after duly
deleting Sections 4 to 112 (Chapters II to VI in Part I), consequently Section
14 would obviously be inapplicable, therefore, the contention of the mortgagees
that the rights of the mortgagors were extinguished under Section 14 and that
the mortgagees became liable to be evicted only on a suit instituted by the Gaon
Sabha or by the Collector cannot but be misconceived and an untenable plea. On
the facts of this case Sections 209 and 210 of the Act are not attracted.
It is
important to note here that on application of the Z.A.Act, Chapter VIII
(Sections 129 to 230) applied to the aforementioned area. Sections 130 and 133,
which are material for our purpose, read as under :
"130.
Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be called a bhumidar
and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred
or imposed upon bhumidars by or under this Act; namely:- (a) Every person who
on the date immediately preceding the appointed day held land as - (i) a fixed
rate tenant or a rent-free grantee - ..............
133.
Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be called an asami
and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred
or imposed upon asamis by or under this Act; namely :- (a) every person who on
the date immediately preceding the appointed day held land as - (i) *** *** ***
(ii) a mortgagee from a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in
sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (a) of Section 130 or sub-clauses (i) to (iv)
of clause (a) of Section 131;
............"
From a perusal of the provisions, extracted above, it is plain that a rent-free
grantee became bhumidar under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 130 and a
mortgagee from a bhumidar became asami under sub- clause (ii) of clause (a) of
Section 133 of the Z.A.Act.
Thus,
in the instant case, the mortgagors became bhumidars and the mortgagees became asamis.
The title of the mortgagors as bhumidars was also accepted by the mortgagees when
they purchased one sixth share in the suit land from the mortgagors. In view of
this position, the mortgagors (bhumidars) were entitled to seek ejection of the
mortgagees (asamis) on depositing the mortgage money under Section 200(c) of
the Z.A.Act.
From
the above discussion, it follows that the mortgagees are not entitled to claim
any right either under the Agra Tenancy Act or under the Z.A. Act. As the
mortgage money had been deposited by the mortgagors, the mortgagees had no
right to continue in the possession of the mortgaged land. However, we clarify
that having purchased one sixth share of the mortgagors, the mortgagees are
entitled to remain in possession of only one sixth share of the land. We have
already noted above that the Settlement Officer had allotted one sixth share of
the suit land to the mortgagees and the possession of the rest of the suit land
had been given to the purchasers of the mortgaged land (suit land).
For
the foregoing reasons the order under challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.865 to 867
of 1984 does not call for any interference by this Court. The Civil Appeal
Nos.865 of 1984, 866 of 1984 and 867 of 1984 are, therefore, dismissed.
In
view of the dismissal of the above appeals, Civil Appeal No.868 of 1984 filed
by the Raj Karan deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed.
In the
circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
Back