Holding

Payment of the stipulated rent under Section 134 makes the sirdar a Bhumidhar with effect from the date of payment, and the certificate under Section 137 relates back to that date, so the tenant’s death before issuance of the certificate does not invalidate the sale deed.

Summary

The appeal concerned a sale deed executed by a tenant, Raghoram, who had deposited twenty times the land revenue to convert his sirdari rights into Bhumidhari rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The sale deed was executed on the same day as the deposit, but Raghoram died before a Bhumidhari certificate (Sanad) was issued. The lower courts held that because the certificate had not been issued before his death, the rights did not relate back to the date of deposit and the sale deed was invalid. The Supreme Court examined Sections 134 and 137 of the Act, noting that the amendment aligns Section 137(2) with Section 134, making the Bhumidhari rights effective from the date of payment irrespective of when the certificate is granted. Relying on Deo Nandan v. Ram Saran, the Court held that the certificate has a retrospective effect and the tenant’s death does not defeat the rights. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the earlier judgments set aside.

Issues considered

Does payment of the stipulated rent under Section 134 confer Bhumidhari rights with effect from the date of payment?
Does the certificate under Section 137 relate back to the date of deposit of rent?
Is a sale deed executed on the date of deposit valid if the tenant dies before the issuance of the Bhumidhari certificate?
How should Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 be interpreted in this context?

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 134, s. 137

Subjects

land reformszamindari abolitionBhumidhari rightssirdarrelation backsale deeddeath of partycertificateU.P. Zamindari Act

Judgment

' }

BINDHA PRASAD & OR'S. A
v.
BHAN DATT (DEAD) BY L.RS.
DECEMBER 10, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] B

Land laws and agricultural tenancy:
UP Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - ss.
134 and 137 -Application for Bhumidari rights by Sirdar - Deposit C
of requisite land revenue - Entitlement to Bhumidhari rights -
Effective date - Held,· Sirdari becomes entitled to Bhumidhari
rights with effect from the date of deposit of amount as
contemplated bys. 134 - Certificate graated uls 137 also relates
back and is effective from the date of deposit of the amount - On D
facts, tenant deposited stipulated rent for conversion of Sirdari
rights into Bhumidhari rights and on the same day executed sale
deed, but died before issuance of requisite certificate - In such
case, death of tenant would not invalidate the sale deed executed
regarding Sirdari plots. E
'R', tenant, deposited 20 times rent to convert the Sirdari
rights into Bhumidhari rights. The same day R executed sale
deed in respect of Sirdari plots. However, R died before any
judicial order was passed for issuance of Sanad or Sanad was
issued in favour of R. The courts below and the High Court held F
that till the death of R, certificate of Sanad was not issued in
favour of R, the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad could not relate
back to the date of deposit of rent and would not entitle the
tenant to execute sale deed in respect of the Sirdari plots on the
date of deposit of 20 times rent. Hence, the present appeal. G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. On the application being made and the
7 H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A stipulated times of land revenue being paid, the sirdari becomes
entitled 'with effect from the date on which the amount had been
deposited' to a declaration that he has acquired rights mentioned
in section 137 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950. The Section clearly specifies the date with effect
B from which the rights would stand acquired i.e. the date on which
the amount contemplated by section 134 is deposited. This clearly
obliviates the uncertainty of the point of time when the title is
;.
transferred by fixing the date as being the date on which the
amount is deposited. It would be immaterial as to when the
c declaration under Section 137 was made because that declaration
must necessarily take effect from the date when the amount is
deposited. Prior to the amendment of sub section (2) of section
137 of the Act it was only the grant of certificate under sub
section (1) of Section 37 that the Sirdar from the date thereof
D became or was deemed to be Bhumidar of the holding or the
share in respect of which the certificate was granted. The
amendment of sub section 2 of section 137 brought section 137(2)
in line with section 134. The two provisions read together clearly
provide. that as and when the certificate 1Jnder Section 137 is
E granted, it must relate back and be effective from the date on
which the amount referred to in sub section (1) of Section 134
was deposited. [Para 8) [11-A, B, C, D, E]
Dea Nandan and Anr. v. Ram Saran and Ors. 2000 (3) SC
F 440 - relied on. .
1.2. The judgment of the High Court affirming the decisions
of the trial court and the first appellate court is set aside.
(Para 9] [12-C]

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1579
of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.02.1998 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). Lucknow in
Second Civil Appeal No. 187 of 1979.
fT
J
BINDHA PRASAD & ORS. v. BHAN DATT (DEAD) 9
BYL.RS. [PASAYAT,J.]
S.C. Paul, Roopa Paul, Satwinder Kaur, Mohinder Singh, S.S. A
-.,; Munde and Rekha Pandey for the Appellants.
Rishi Malhotra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment of a learned Single judge of the Allahabad High Court
dismissing the Second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). The
Second appeal was by the defendant in a suit filed for cancellation of c
a sale deed executed by one Raghoram in respect of Sirdari plots. The
suit was decreed, the defendant's first appeal was dismissed. The
cross-objections of the plaintiff were also dismissed by judgment and
decree dated 5.1.1979. The second appeal was directed against the
judgment and decree dated 20.7.1978 and the judgment and decree D
dated 5.1.1979.
y
2. Raghoram who was a patient of cancer, died in September,
1979. The disputed plots were Sirdari plots and 20 times rent was
deposited to convert the Sirdari rights into Bhumidhari rights. The
deposit was made on 2.8.1976 and on the same day the sale deed E
was executed.
3. According to the High Court the point to be considered was
whether by the deposit of20 times rent, Raghoram became Bhumidhar
J.,
so as to execute the sale deed. The High Court held that till the death F
ofRaghoram sometimes in September, 1979, neither any judicial order
was passed for issuance of Sanad nor certificate of Sanad was issued
in favour of Raghoram. It was accepted that grant of Sanad of
Bhumidhari rights relates back to the date of deposit of 20 times rent.
But in the present case since the tenant died before any judicial order G
for issuance of Sanad could be passed or before the Sanad could be
issued, therefore, the grant ofBhumidhari Sanad cannot relate back to
-;-
the date of deposit and would not entitle the tenant to execute the sale
deed in respect of the disputed Sirdari plots on the date of deposit of
20 times rent. Accordingly second appeal was dismissed. H
10 SUPREME COUP.T REPORTS [2007]13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view of
>,-
the courts below and that of the High Court is clearly contrary to the
law. Since on grant of Sanad, Bhumidhari rights relates back to the
date of deposit of 20 times rent the mere fact that the tenant died
before any order was passed in that regard, the effect would be wiped
B out is not supportable in law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the order. ~

6. The question involved in the present case pertains to the
c interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition
and Lands Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the 'Act').
7. Sections 134 and 137 of the Act read as follows:
"134( 1) If a sirdar belonging to the class mentioned in clause (a)
D of Section 131 pays or offers to pay to the credit of the State
Government an amount equal to ten times the land revenue payable
or deemed to be payable on the date of application for the land
of which he is the sirdar, he shall, upon an application duly made
in that behalf to an Assistant Collector, be entitled, with effect
E from the date on which the amount has been deposited, to a
declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section
137 in respect of such land .... "
Section 13 7 insofar as it is relevant then stood as follows:
F "13 7( 1) If the application has been duly made and the Assistant •
Collector is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the declaration
mentioned in Section 134, he shall grant a certificate to that
effect. (2) Upon the grant of the certificate under sub-section (1)
the sirdar shall from the date thereof-
G
(a) become and be deemed to be a Bhumidhar of the holding
or the share in respect of which the certificate has been
granted, and "'
(b) * *"
H
BINDHA PRASAD & ORS. v. BHAN DATT (DEAD) 11
BY L.RS. [PASAYAT, J.]
8. On the application being made and the stipulated times ofland A
revenue being paid, the sirdari becomes entitled "with effect from the
date on which the amount had been deposited" to a declaration that
he has acquired rights mentioned in Section 13 7 of the Act. The
Section clearly specifies the date with effect from which the rights
would stand acquired i.e. the date on which the amount contemplated B
by Section 134 is deposited. This clearly obliviates the uncertainty of
the point of time when the title is transferred by fixing the date as being
the date on which the amount is deposited. It would be immaterial as
to when the declaration under Section 13 7 is made because that
declaration must necessarily take effect from the date when the amount C
is deposited. Prior to the amendment of sub section (2) of Section 137
of the Act the position was that it is only the grant of certificate under
sub section ( 1) of Section 13 7 that the Sirdar from the date thereof
became or is to be deemed to be a Bhumidhar of the holding or the
share in respect of which the certificate has been granted. The D
amendment of sub section (2) of Section 137 by Amendment Act 21
of 1962 with effect from 13 .12.1962 brought Section 13 7 (2) in line
with Section 134. The two provisions read together clearly provide
that as and when the certificate under Section 13 7 is granted, it must
relate back and be effective from the date on which the amount referred E
to in sub section (1) of Section 134 was deposited. In this context the
observation of this Court in para 9 of Deo Nandan and Am: v. Ram
Saran and Ors. [2000 (3) SC 440] is worth being quoted. So far
relevant, it was observed as follows:
F
"In our opinion, the said decisions run counter to the plain
language and meaning of Sections 134 and 137 as they stood at
the relevant point of time. When a certificate is issued under
Section 137 it in fact recognises the position as on the date when
the application was made and the payment contemplated under G
Section 134(1) was deposited. The certificate, In other words,
will have a retrospective effect and would relate back to the date
of the application. There was nothing to prevent the revenue
authorities from allowing the application filed under Section 134(1)
on the day when it was presented. The underlying intention of H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A the legislature, therefore, clearly is that as and when the said
application Is accepted and order is passed under Section 137
it must relate back to the date when the application was filed.
Such a situation is not unknown to law. Mr. Prem Prasad Juneja,
learned Counsel for the appellants, as an analogy, has drawn our
B attention to Order 22 Rule 6, C.P.C. which provides that if any
of the parties to a suit dies after the hearing has been completed
and before the judgment is pronounced, the suit would not abate.
The doctrine of relation back has been incorporated in Sections
134 and 137 of the U.P. ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms
C Act."
9. In view of what has been stated above the appeal is allowed
and the judgment of the High Court affirming the decisions of the trial
court and the first appellate court is set aside. Cost made easy.
D N.J. Appeal allowed.