Holding

Parliament’s power under Article 3 to alter state boundaries makes the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968 a valid exercise of that power, and the High Court was correct in declining to adjudicate title and related factual disputes in writ proceedings.

Summary

The appellants, claiming to be original residents of villages on the Bihar‑Uttar Pradesh border, challenged the validity of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968, arguing that state boundaries were frozen as of 26‑January‑1950 and that the disputed lands were never transferred. The Supreme Court held that Article 3 of the Constitution gives Parliament sweeping power to alter state boundaries and that the 1968 Act validly transferred the specified territories from Bihar to Uttar Pradesh. The Court also affirmed the High Court’s view that questions of title, possession and the existence of the three villages required oral and documentary evidence and could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. It further accepted that Section 26 of the 1968 Act means pre‑transfer laws continue to apply until the transferee State extends its own laws. The appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the High Court to consider the feasibility of representative actions under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Issues considered

Whether the boundaries between Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were frozen as of 26‑January‑1950, precluding any transfer of territory under the 1968 Act.
Whether the High Court was correct in refusing to decide title, possession, river‑course changes and the existence of the three villages in writ jurisdiction.
Whether the Uttar Pradesh statutes, particularly the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, apply to the territories transferred from Bihar under the 1968 Act, in view of Section 26 of that Act.
Whether further relief, including representative actions under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is appropriate.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 1(2), s. 3, s. 4
Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956
States Reorganisation Act, 1956s. 119
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901s. 210, s. 219, s. 32, s. 39, s. 40, s. 41, s. 43, s. 54, s. 54(2), s. 54(6), s. 57
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950

Subjects

Article 3state boundary alterationBiharUttar Pradeshriver Gangaland transferwrit jurisdictiontitle disputeland revenuesection 26alteration of boundaries actconstitutional lawjurisdictionrepresentative actionland reform

Judgment

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

NOVEMBER 9, 1998
B
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Articles 1(2), 3 and 4-Alteration of State boundaries-Powers of C
Parliament-Lands on the border of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh-Transfer of-
Challenge on the ground that lands stood frozen as on 26.1.1950--Va/idity
of-Held, lands were not frozen as on 26.1.1950--Par/iament has sweeping
powers to alter the boundaries of any State-Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
(Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968.
. D
Article 226---Writ jurisdiction-Scope and extent of-Alteration of
boundaries-Transfer of land from one State to another-Disputes regarding
title of possession, existence of disputed villages etc.-High Court holding
that the said disputes cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction without adducing
oral and documentary evidence-Validity of-Held, High Court justified in
not deciding the issue. E
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries) Act, 1968 :
ss. 2, 3(l)(b)(ii), 3, 4 and 5-Alteration of boundaries-Transfer of
lands from one State to another-Minutes of the meeting between the
representatives of two States-Directions by Board of Revenue to prepare F
records and maps-Notification to place the disputed village under survey
and record operation-Held, within the jurisdiction of the authority and does
not amount to final ac(judication of the matter.
s.26---Territorial extent of law-Alteration of boundaries-Transfer of
lands from one State to another-Laws in force in transferor State-
Applicability of-Held, even after transfer of lands, laws in force in transferor G
State shall continue to apply till the laws of transferee State are extended to
the areas so transferred.
Deep stream of the river Ganga formed the boundary between certain
districts in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh State. Due to change in the course of
583
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A River Ganga dispute arose as to whether large tracts ofland on the borders
of the two States formed part of the State of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. The
minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the two States
stated that the disp~d villages existed in Bihar State and stood transferred
to Uttar Pradesh State after the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of
B boundaries) Act, 1968 was passed. The Board of Revenue issued directions
to the Collector to prepare records and maps of the areas in Uttar Pradesh.
Subsequently, a notification was issued by the Government to place the
disputed villages under survey and record operation. Appellants claiming
to be old residents of the disputed villages, filed writ petition contending
that the boundaries between the States were frozen as on 26.1.1950 and the
C disputed villages were always under the Uttar Pradesh State and there was
no question of any transfer of lands under the Act. High Court disposed of
the said petition inter alia holding that the boundaries were not frozen as
on 26.1.1950 and under Article 3 of the Constitution/Parliament has
sweeping powers to alter the boundaries of any State; the dispute regarding
title of possession, dates of changes in the course of river Ganga and the
D existence of the disputed villages cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction
without adducing oral and documentary evidence. Hence this appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The boundaries between Bihar State and Uttar Pradesh
E State were not frozen as on 26.1.1950 and Article 3 of the Constitution
provides for alteration of boundaries by Parliamentary legislations. Thus,
High Court was justified in holding that Parliament has powers to alter the
boundaries of any State. [603-B-C)

1.2. In exercise of its powers under Article 3 of the Constitution,
F Parliament passed the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries)
Act, 1968. Consequently, certain territories in Shahabad District ofBihar
lying between the fixed boundary and the deep stream of the river Ganga
came to be transferred from Bihar State to Uttar Pradesh State.
(598-D; 603-B)

G In Re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, (1960) 3 SCR
250 and Babula! Parate v. The State of Bombay and Anr., (1960) 1 SCR 605,
relied on.

2. High Court was justified in holding that the questions whether land
from the three disputed villages of Bihar got added to Uttar Pradesh by
H transfer, whether three disputed villages were non-existent or ghost villages
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. 585
ofBihar created fictitiously by the officials of the State ofBihar, the dispute A
regarding title of r~session, and other related matters cannot be decided
in writ jurisdictio'~·oflasmuch as a lot of oral and documentary evidence is
to be adduced an'd considered by the courts or authorities under the Uttar
Pradesh Acts. (603-F-G)

3. The minutes of the meeting between the representatives of the two B
States, directions of the Board of Revenue and the notification issued
pursuant thereto were administrative in nature and no prior notice to the
appellants was necessary. High Court was justified in holding that the said
minutes, directions and notification was within the jurisdiction of the
authority and does not amount to any final adjudication of the matter. High C
Court also rightly held that the entries in the records could be scored off or
ignored only after notice under Section 54(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Land
Revenue Act. (604-B; 606-C; F)

4. In view of Section 26 of the 1968 Act, even after the transfer ofsome
territories from Bihar to Uttar Pradesh State, the Bihar laws in force in D
those areas before such transfer shall continue to apply in those territories
till the laws of transferee State of Uttar Pradesh are extended to the areas
so transferred to Uttar Pradesh State. (608-D]

Rattan Lal and Co. v. Assessing Authority, Patia/a, (1969) 2 SCR 544;
State ofPunjab v. Balbir Singh, [1976) 3 SCC 242 and Dayanandv. Union of E
India, (1996) 7 SCC 47, relied on.

Ram Janam v. Radha Krishan Chaube, (1996] 8 SCC 277, referred to.

Radha Krishan Chaube v. Ram Janam, (1981] Allahabad L.J. 940,
approved. F
5. The matter is remitted to the High Court to find out the feasibility
ofrepresentative actions being filed under the UP Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950. If the High Court thinks it feasible to have the
disputes decided under the 1950 Act, and at a higher level by the
Commissioner or other officer, it will be open to the High Court to issue G
appropriate directions. If the High Court thinks that such a procedure is
not feasible, it will be for the High Court to decide and leave the parties to
choose their further remedies after the conclusion of the cases under the
UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. (611-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3782 H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A of 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.88 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P.No. 10266 of 1986.

V.K.S. Chaudhary, V.V. Mishra, N.S. Gahlaut and A.S. Pundir for the
B Appellants.
R.K. Khanna, Rajeev Singh and R.P. Singh for Respondent No. 3.

Pramod Swamp and A.K. Srivastava for the Respondent Nos. 2, 4, and
5.
c Kirit N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General and P. Parmeswaran for
the Responden~ No. l.

R.K. Jain and R.P. Wadhawani for the Intervenors.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. The river Ganga has been changing its
course over a period of years and a dispute has arisen in regard to a large
tract of land on the borders of the State of UP and State of Bihar as to
whether this land is to be treated as part of the State of Bihar or the State of
E Uttar Pradesh.

The appeal has arisen out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10266 of
1986 filed by six persons (appellants) claiming to be the old residents of
village Hansnagar, UP as it stood at the time of survey of 1981- 83. The
Union of India, the State of U.P. and the State (lf Bihar were impleaded as
F respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The Board of Revenue, UP and the Record Officer,
Ballia (UP) were imp leaded as respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The appellants
sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Record Officer, Ballia, UP from
carrying on survey and record operations in regard to village Hansnagar, UP
otherwise than on the basis that it was always a part of the State of UP and
G on the basis that it was not transferred territory under the Bihar and UP
Alteration ofBoundry Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the '1968 Act') and they
further required the survey and record operations to be carried out ignoring
the directions contained in the Minutes of the meeting of officials dated
19.10.84 and letter of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985. Alternatively,
they sought a writ of certiorari quashing the said minutes dated 19.10.1984
H and the directions of the Board of Revenue dated I 0.10.1985.
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 587
As the matter concerns a few thousands of acres and there is a large A
volume of litigation pending in the Court, it has become necessary to go into
the matter in considerable detail.

Pleadings in High Court :

The petitioners-appellants, contended in the writ petition that they and B
certain others were residents of village Hansnagar (now U.P.) as recorded in
the survey of 1881-1883, that at the commencement of the Constitution of
India on 26.1.1950, the boundaries of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar States were
frozen and all land lying to the west of the eastern stream (then the deep
stream) formed part of Hansnagar of UP that, after 26.1.1950, despite the C
change in the course of the river Ganga, the said land continued in possession
of the appellants and was entered in the records of UP for which the appellants
continued to pay land revenue. According to them, if one excluded the fictitious
records and maps "created" by the officials of the State of Bihar there would
be no question of transferring any land as contemplated by the 1968 Act
from Bihar to U.P. State this land was in U.P. from 26.1.1950. The petitioners- D
appellants also contended that the three villages (i) Nainijor 1845, (ii) Nainijor
Nambrar and (iii) Nainijor Diare Paschim which the Bihar Government with
the Bihar respondents claimed as existing, were imaginary or ghost villages
only recorded in the records prepared by the Bihar officials. The appellants
contended that erroneous minutes were issued by the representatives of the E
two States and the Union oflndia on 19.10.1984, on the basis of the records
submitted by the Bihar officials. The said minutes read as follows.

"I. The U.P. Government may write to the Bihar Government
specifying the basic records required in respect of the lands comprised
in the three transferred villages in question and the Bihar Government F
would comply with their request within a month of receipt of the
relevant communication from the U.P. Government. The extent of
availability of records the State Governments may endorse copies of
their communications to this ministry.

II. The U.P. Government may retain the names of villages as appearing
G
in the records transferred by Bihar Government.

III. Boundary pillars may be fixed on ground in accordance with the
provisions of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries)
Act, 1968. The U.P. Government may retain the names of villages as H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A appearing in the records transferred by the Bihar Government."

The appellants contend that the above minutes wrongly assume such villages
existed on Bihar side before 1968 and stood transferred to U.P. after the 1968
Act. The petitioners had received parchis-statement of the Record Officer
maintaining that their land was included in the newly-named satellite village
B of Bihar and they contend that the consequential directions contained in the
proceedings ofBoard of Revenue, UP dated 10.10.1985 were also bad. There
are all contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India as on 26.1.50
and also to the 1968 Act and were ultra-vires.

C The Union of India in its counter in the High Court stated that the
record of rights proceedings in U.P. were part of judicial process and parties
could question the same in appeals and that the maps prepared by the Survey
of India department in regard to the transferred territories were relevant and
were intended to facilitate the identification of the transferred territories,
that, may be the three disputed villages did not figure in the Survey of India
D map of 1881-83 and so were not included in the Schedule to the 1968 Act
but they were shown with reference to revenue records in force at the time
of transfer as envisaged in section 3(4) of the 1968 Act. The purpose of the
meeting of 19.10.1984 was administrative in nature for resolving differences
between the two States and there was no question of any notice to the
E petitioners. The names of the three villages have now been included in the
map of the Survey of India in accordance with information given by the
Bihar Government.

The State of UP, in its counter in the High Court, stated that the survey
and record operations of village Hansnagar of Ballia Dt. (UP) were being
F carried on in accordance with the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and an
agreement was arrived at during the 19.10.1984 meeting and directions were
given by Board of Revenue, UP. The UP Government does not dispute that
in 194-1 the river Ganga changed its course and entire area of village Hansnagar
stood transferred to UP by 1950 and that the said village was part of District
G Ballia in U.P. as mentioned in the Survey map of 1881-83. However, in
1961, the river· Ganga changed course again and the entire Hansnagar village
went back to Bihar State. Under the 1968 Act, by virtue of the statutory
transfer the said land reverted back to UP. The UP State further stated that
the Bihar Government handed over record of the three disputed villages
covering an area of 2000 acres of Hansnagar and about 475 acres of village
H Jauhi, UP. The State of UP contended that records of the three disputed
R.B. RA! v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 589
villages have been prepared and parchis have been issued. Objections have A
been filed and are pending before the Assistant Record Officer, Ballia, UP.
The directions issued by the UP Board of Revenue were necessary for
correcting the double entries prevailing in the revenue records. The petitioners
will have opportunity to urge their cases before the various authorities under
the UP Land Revenue Act.
B
The State of Bihar, in its counter in the High Court, stated that the
position which existed before 1881-83 was altered after 1881-83, and
considerable portion of village Nainijor went over from Bihar to UP side in
1881-83, and that portion was indicated as part of Hansnagar of UP, that
portion was incapable of cultivation since it consisted of sandy tracts. After C
1881-83, the river started receding in the other direction and as a result land
of village Nainijor was again thrown up on Bihar side of the river. A cadestral
survey was conducted in the year 1909-1910 by the State ofBihar, but during
that survey, the portion which was again thrown on Bihar side of the river
was not cadestrally surveyed and included in the village boundary of village D
Nainijor as this portion was not fully established by then. But after the land
of village Nainijor reappeared on the Shahabad side (Bhoj Dt.), (Bihar) tenants
of village Nainijor took possession of these lands as and when it became fit
for agriculture. The Maharaj a of Dunnrao, the then landlord of the village, also
accepted them as tenants. After the vesting consequent to the abolition of
Zamindari in Bihar, rent-receipts were regularly granted by the State ofBihar E
to these tenants who were still in possession of the land. The three villages
were real and were neither imaginary nor ghost villages. Till the transfer of
records to UP, in 1968 , the areas of the three questioned villages were under
the revenue control of the Government of Bihar. The State of Bihar reiterated
that the river changed its course in 1961 and land reappeared on Nainijor side F
in Bihar. The UP Government, according to the State of Bihar, never exercised
control over these lands in Nainijor from 1927 to 1944. Rather, the area was
under the revenue control of the Bihar Government. The deep stream was the
boundary. The three villages stood transferred under the 1968 Act to the UP
States. The meeting of 19 .10.1984 was an administrative one and there was no
question of giving notice to rival claimants. G
During the pendency of the case in the High Court, Baleshwar Tiwari
and 67 others, claiming to be tenants of land on Nainijor side, (Bihar) got
impleaded and filed counter affidavit (They were impleaded in this Court also
as respondents by order dated 19.10.1989 in CMP No. 11100of1989). They
raised the plea of res-judicata on account of certain judgments in UP, 8474/ H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 85, 8592 of 1986 and 4005/86. They traced the history of village Hansnagar
in UP from 1840 and asserted that initially the said village was having a much
smaller area. After 1881-83, the river changed its course and a large chunk of
land of Hansnagar and other villages went to Bihar side. Village Nainijor 1845,
Nainijor Diare Paschim and Nainijor Nambrar came into existence. There was
fresh settlement with the tenants of Bihar side in these three villages. These
B respondents of Nainijor have been holding the lands in these three villages
from the time of their ancestors. They referred to the record maintained by
the officials of the UP Government. They also referred to a notification No.
U.O.l./IF-72 dated 26.7.73 of the UP Government under which the village of
Hansnagar and the three villages Nainijor Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar
C and Nainijor 1845 were placed by the UP Government under survey and
record operations. In the proceedings relating to the description of the villages,
Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar and Nainijor 1845 - there were important
notes. This notification & the directions therein must be deemed to have been
issued under section 234 of the Land Revenue Act and were not challenged.
The land was part of Bihar and stood transferred to UP only under the 1968
D Act. The other litigations referred to by the writ petitioners did not concern
these three villages. They contended that Nainijor village was different from
these three villages. They contended that the records maintained by the Bihar
Government were correct.

E In the High Court, rejoinders were filed by the appellants writ petitioners
to contend that these lands were always part of Hansnagar on UP side and
that there was no question of their being transferred to UP under the 1968
Act. The three disputed villages never existed in Bihar side and respondents-
interveners have no right to these lands. The minutes of 1984 and the Board's
direction of 1985 and the 1973 notification were bad.
F
A question was argued whether in view of section 26 of the 1968 Act,
the UP statutes could be straightway applied to territories transferred from
Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act.

G High Court Judgment :

On these pleadings, the High Court held as follows: (I) The judgment
referred to by the respondents in writ petitions 8474 of 1986 (Ram Shankar
Rai v. UOI); WP No. 4005of1986, 8592/80 (Ram Nath Pandey v. Board of
Revenue) and in 79656/86 (Bajrangi v. Board of Revenue) would not operate
H as res-judicata against the writ petitioners who were not parties thereto;
R.B. RA! v. U.O.l. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 591
(2) The meeting of officials dated 19.10.1984 was held by both States A
under the aegis of the Central Government. The first part of the letter of the
Board of Revenue dated I 0.10.1985 was intended to give effect to the said
minutes. The contention urged on behalf of the respondents and the
interveners (respondents of Nainijor) that the agreement was an act of State
as between the two States did not arise because that States within Union of
India were not sovereign (but were subject to the Constitution) and the real
B
question was whether the said minutes and directions were in conformity with
the Constitution of India and the 1968 Act;

(3) The contentions of the writ petitioners, namely (i) that the boundary
of UP and Bihar became frozen on 26.1.1950 and this territory went to UP side C
because the river changed its course in 1944 and the eastern stream became
the deep stream as was also the position at the time of survey of 1981-83. (ii)
that all land lying to the west of deep eastern stream became part of UP, that
no circular or regulation in vogue before 26.1.1950 could have changed the
frozen boundary again, that the change of course in 1960 or thereafter was
irrelevant- (iii) that even if the western stream became the deep stream the D
land to its east (i.e. west of the eastern stream which was earlier the deep
stream before 1961) continued to remain with UP by 1968 and the 1968 Act
could not transfer any land from UP State to Bihar State-were contentions not
acceptable because of the judgment of this Court in State of West Bengal v.
Union of India, [1964] I SCR 371 inasmuch as Parliament has sweeping E
powers under Article 3 of the Constitution of India;

(4) The contention of the petitioners that the land between the two
streams was part of Hansnagar on UP side and the further contention that
the record of these villages maintained by the Bihar Government was fictitious
and the contention of the counsel for Bihar that these three villages were in F
existence and that this was borne out by the records- was a matter which

"involves probe into questions of fact which need consideration of
oral evidence in this regard and opportunities to the parties to lead
documentary evidence. The dispute between the parties can be decided
in regular proceedings with regard to the disputed land situated G
between the two streams.";

(5) The contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid area could not
be treated as part of the 'transferred territory' under the 1968 Act could not
be finally decided in these writ proceedings as the C&urt was not in a position
to conclude whether the disputed land was part and parcel of UP State or it H

'
}
592 SUPREME COURT RE~ORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A became really a part and parcel of UP State or it became really a part and
parcel ofBihar and thereafter stood transferred to State of UP. The High Court
observed:

"On the materials before us, we are unable to express concluded
opinion on the question whether the disputed land ever fonned part
B of Bihar State and is transferred territory to UP within the meaning of
the provisions of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries)
Act. Accordingly, we refrain from accepting the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioners in this regard".

(6) So far as the validity of the 'boundaries' and 'maps' prepared under
C the 1968 Act was concerned and the contention that these three villages were
the imaginary creation of the Bihar officials- in view of sub-section (2) to (4)
of section 3, the 'demarcation of the boundary' by authority approved by
the Central Government was sacrosant but the map prepared under section
3(4) being an official one, raised only a rebutable presumption of correctness
D in view of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. This point was supported
by the note of the Surveyor-General to the effect that he did not verify the
topography;

(7) Assuming that the Bihar officials in their records sent names of
three villages in contravention on Bihar law and without assigning any Tauzi
E or Thana number- the actual occupants or tenants of the land of all these
three villages could not be deprived of their rights without adjudication of
the existence of these villages and of the tenancy rights thereto and such an
adjudication could not be made in writ jurisdiction;

(8) The UP Government issued notification in 1973 for survey in respect
F of the three villages Nainijor Diara Paschim, Nainijor Nambrar and Nainijor
1845, the notification showed Nainijor Diara Paschim covering parts of
villages Dabutiel, Bandhoo Chak Haldi Rikni, Chapra, Hansnagar Janhi,
Chambey, be! and chambey be! Ganga barar ; Nainijor Nambrar covering
parts of Jaunhi, and Nainijor 1845 covering part of Hansnagar. But this was
G shown (after) survey. The High Court observed, it should not be forgotten
that in the 1968 Act, boundaries had been fixed wit'· reference to the survey
of 1881-83 and if the three villages, on survey and physical verification, were
-
found to exist, it would have to be ascertained in which village of UP according
to the survey of 1881-83, they lay;

H (9) The plea of petitioners that both the minutes of 19.10.1984 and the

'.
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 593
first part of the letter of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985 and the A
notification of 26. 7.1973 for survey were without jurisdiction was without
substance (Para 44);

(10) If in the notices Parchis on specific plots, names of persons and
•
villages of both sides were recorded and notices were sent to both sides,
there was nothing illegal or contrary in that action inasmuch as these entries B
were liable to correction, after adjudication, under section 54(2) of the UP
Land Revenue Act. When the entries in the records maintained by UP and
Bihar officials were conflicting and mistakes and disputes were apparent, they
could be corrected and resolved only in the manner prescribed, as the case
might be, under sections 54, 40, 41, 43 of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. C
If the mistakes and disputes could not be resolved by correction (by the Naib
Tehsildar}, then the records along with objections, should be forwarded to
the Assistant Records Officer, who could dispose of the same under section
54 (6), in accordance with sections 40,41, or 43 ;

(11) In the instant case, the dispute involved questions of title because D
the parties on UP side claimed themselves to be tenants whereas the parties
on Bihar side also claimed to be tenants of the same land. When the dispute
involved a question of title, the Assistant Record Officer should decide the
same after summary inquiry. Such decision was appealable under section 210
and was revisable before the Board of Revenue under section 219;
E
(12) The survey and record operations were part of judicial process, as
seen from Chapter IX (sections 189 to 209) of UP Land Revenue Act. The
Assistant Records Officer, constituted a Court. There was no statutory
prohibition for appearance of lawyers or for accepting oral evidence to be
adduced. The Asstt. Records Officer could not exclude oral evidence though F
he might not record evidence verbatim ;

(13) The direction in the letter of the Board of Revenue that summary
proceedings might be decided without the presence of lawyers and without
oral evidence was, therefore, contrary to the provision of the UP Land Revenue
Act, 190 I and that part of the 1985 order of the Board of Revenue prohibiting G
engagement of lawyers or oral evidence was liable to be struck down. The
Asst. Records Officer could consolidate cases under section 192-A of the UP
Land Revenue Act, 1901 to obviate multiplicity of evidence and hearings;

(14) A seasoned and experienced officer of unquestionable integrity
could be appointed by the State Government as the Asst. Records Officer for H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A disposing of these cases under section 54(6);
(15) Rest of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners-appellants were liable
to be rejected. That is how the High Court disposed of the matter.

In this appeal, elaborate submissions were made by Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary,
B senior counsel for appeallants, Shri R.K. Khanna for respondent No. 3, Shri
Pramod Swamp for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, Shri Kirti N. Raval, Addi.
Solicitor General for respondent No. 1 and Shri R.K. Jain, senior counsel for
the interveners. The same contentions urged in the High Court were reiterated
before us.

C The following points arise for consideration:

(1) Whether under Articles 1 (2), 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India,
the boundaries between Bihar and State of UP became frozen as on
26.1.1950 and whether there was no question of transfer of territory
from Bihar State to UP State under the 1968 Act?
D
(2) Whether the High Court was right in not deciding issues of title
or possession or the dates of changes in the course of the river Ganga
or on which side this land lay before the 1968 Act and also as to
existence of these three villages or as to whether these three villages
stood transferred in 1968 to the state of UP?
E
(3) Whether the UP statutes could be applied to the territories
transferred from Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act and whether they
were extended to the transferred territory?

(4) To what relief.
F
Point /:

It is necessary, at the outset, to refer to the historical aspects of the
case in relation to the change of course of the river Ganga. The same has been
set out in Radha Krishna Chaube & Anr. v. Ram Janam and Anr., [1981]
G Allahabad L.J. 940 by S.J. Hyder, J. That judgment was no doubt reversed
by this Court in Ram Janam v. Radha Krishna, Chaube, [1996] 8 SCC 277
on a narrow point.

Period from 1825 to 1950:

H The Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation of 1825 (Regulation No.
R.B. RAI v. U.O.I. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 595
XI of 1825) states in its preamble as follows: A
"In consequence of the frequent changes which take place in the
channel of the principal rivers that intersect the territories immediately
subject to the presidency of Fort William and the shifting of the sands
which lie in the beds of those rivers, chars or small islands are often
thrown up by the alluvion in the midst of the stream, or near one of B
the banks and large portions of land are carried away by an
encroachment of the river on one side, whilst accession of land are
at the same time, or in subsequent years gained by dereliction of the
water on the opposite side; similar instances of alluvion, encroachment
and dereliction also sometimes occur on the sea coast which borders C
the Southern and the South-eastern limits of Bengal. The lands gained
from the rivers or sea by the means above mentioned are a frequent
source of contention and affray, and although the law and custom in
the country have established rules applicable to such cases these
rules not being generally known, the Courts of Justice have sometimes
found it difficult to determine the rights of litigant parties claiming D
chars or other land g,ained in the manner above described."

The Regulation, therefore, issued certain guidelines for determining the
ownership of the land gained by alluvion or diluvion whenever disputes arose
between individuals. The Regulation of 1825 did not concern itself with the
boundaries of any geographical areas in Bihar or UP. However, the Governor E
General issued two notifications in the year 1867 and 1871 which provided
that the 'deep stream' of the river Ganga and Ghagra should be considered
to be the boundary of the districts of Shahabad and Saran on Bihar side
and the district of Bal/ia on the UP side. Problems relating to boundary arose
because sometimes the eastern stream and sometimes the western stream
F
between the two. States-became the deep stream.

Whether boundaries frozen as on 26.1.1950

In the Constitution of India as it stood on 26.1.1950, it was stated in
Article 1(2) that the States and territories of India shall be the States and their G
territories as specified in Parts A, B and C of the First Schedule. In the First
Schedule Part A, at serial No. 2 we have the State of Bihar and at serial No.
8, we have the State of United Provinces. It was further stated in the said First
Schedule under the heading 'Territories of States' in para 3 that the territory
of each of the States referred to in that para in Part A shall comprise the
territories which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A were comprised in the corresponding province (i.e, Bihar Province and
United India Province) and the territories which, by virtue of an order made
under Section 290 A of the Government oflndia Act, 1935 were immediately
before such commencement being administered as if they formed part of that
province.

B According to the appellants, the territories comprised in the Part A
State of United Provinces as on 26.1.50 stood frozen and that on that day,
-by virtue of the then position of the deep stream,--being the eastern
stream, these lands were to the west of the said stream and stood physically
included in the State of United Provinces. According to the appellants, if
C subsequently, after 1950 the Western stream became the deep stream, that
could not be taken cognizance of because under Article I(3), the position as
on 26.1.50 stood geographically frozen.

This contention, in our view, was rightly rejected by the High Court.
(Here we are not to be understood as deciding the existence or otherwise
D of the three disputed villages). In Article 3 of the Constitution, it is stated as
follows:

"Article 3: Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries
or names of existing States : Parliament may by law-

E (a) form a new State ............ .

(b) increase the area of any State,

(c) diminish the area of any State,

(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
F
(e) alter the name of any State.
Provided that ........................... "

It is obvious that under sub clause (d) of Article 3, the boundaries as on
26.1.50. between the States were clearly made subject to alteration by
G Parliamentary legislation.
(i) Constitutional Amendments 1955, 1956 and the Bihar & West Bengal
(Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1956:

By the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, the proviso to Article
H 3 was substituted by a new proviso which read as follows:
R.B. RAI v. U.O.l. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 597
"Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either A
House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President
and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the areas,
boundaries or name of any of the States specified in Part A or Part
B of the First Schedule, the Bill has been referred by the President to
the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within B
such period as may be specified in the reference or within such
further period as the President may allow and the period so specified
or allowed has expired."

The words 'specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule, were
omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. By virtue of the C
said Seventh Amendment Act, 1956, Article 1(2) was amended as 'The States
and Territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule'. The First
Schedule was also simultaneously amended and so far as serial No. 3, the
State of Bihar was concerned, it would comprise of "territories which
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution were either
comprised in the Province on Bihar or were being administered as if they D
formed part of that province, but excluding the territories specified in sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer a/Territories)
Act, 1956". So far as serial No. 12, the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned,
it was to comprise of the 'territories which immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution of India were either comprised in the E
Province known as the United Provinces or were administered as if they
formed part of that province.'

(ii) Arbitration by Shri C.M Trivedi, JCS and the 1968 Act: The
changes in the deep stream resulted in a meeting of the Chief Ministers of
the two States in 1961 and they agreed to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator F
to be appointed by the Prime Minister and to abide by the decision to be
given by the Prime Minister on a consideration of the recommendation of the
Arbitrator. Accordingly, Shri C.M. Trivedi, JCS former Governor of the State
of Andhra Pradesh was appointed Arbitrator and he submitted his report to
the late Prime Minister, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri on 28.8.1964 recommepding
a fixed boundary in both the Ganga and Ghagra sectors. The recommendations G
were accepted by the late Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri and conveyed
to the State Governments. The effect of the recommendations made by Shri
C.M. Trivedi was as follows :
(1) On the basis of the 1963-64 deep stream position, the fixed
boundary involves the transfer of an area of about 45 sq. miles from H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A UP to Bihar and about 64 sq. miles from Bihar to UP;

(2) About 85% of the fixed boundary will 'be on land in the Ganga
sector and 75% of it will be on land in the Ghagra sector, whereas the
entire land (in 1968) (as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the 1968 Act) lay in water;
B
(3) The deep stream of the river ganga forms the inter-state boundary
between Shahabad district (Bihar) and Ballia District (U.P.). Similarly
the deep stream of the river Ghagra in the inter-state boundary between
the Saran district (Bihar) and Ballia District (U.P.). As the two rivers
change their course almost every year, the deep streams do not remain
c constant with the result that the inter-state boundary continued to
fluctuate. Hence the above recommendations in ( 1) and (2) above
have been given.

Accordingly, the Bihar and UP (Alteration of Boundaries ) Act, 1968
(Act 24 of 1968) came to be passed by Parliament and as required by Article
D · 3 of the Constitution of India, the Bill was referred by the President of India
to the Legislatures of the States of Bihar and UP for their views.

The said Act in Section 2(a) speaks of an 'appointed day' and the
transfer of territories under Section 3(a) is to be effective from the 'appointed ·
E day'. The 'appointed day' has been fixed as 10.6.1970 (Gazette oflndia, 3.6.70,
Part II Section 3(1), Ext. p. 543 ofGSR 901). The Act also defines 'deep stream'
in Section 2(c) and 'fixed boundaries' in Section 2(d) as follows:

"Section 2(c): 'deep stream', in relation to the river Ganga or the river
Ghagra, means the 'deep stream · thereof as verified and agreed upon
by the State Government of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh after the 30th day
F of September of the year preceding the year in which the appointed
day falls and before the 1st day of January of the year in which the
appointed day falls and in default of agreement between the State
Governments, as determined by such authority as may be specified by
.the Central Government.
G Section 2(d): 'fixed boundary' means the boundary line demarcated
under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 in relation to the
river Ganga or the river Ghagra, as the case may be."

The words 'transferred territories' are defined in Section 2(i} as follows:

H "Section 2(i): 'transferred territories' means (i) in relation to the State
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 599

of Bihar, the territories transferred by this Act from that State to the A
State of Uttar Pradesh and (ii) in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh,
the territories transferred by this Act from that State to the State of
Bihar."

and Section 20) says that 'any reference to a district of a State shall be
contained as a reference to the area physically comprised within the district B
immediately before the appointed day.

The 1968 Act, in Part II, deals with the 'transfer of territories'. It says
as follows:

"Section 3. Transfer of Territories: (I) As from the appointed day- c
(a) there shall be added to the State of Bihar-

(i) ................................................................ .

(ii) ................................................................. . D
and the said territories shall thereupon cease to form part of the State
of Uttar Pradesh; and

(b) there shall be added to the State of Uttar Pradesh--
E
(i) all the territories of Saran district of the State of Bihar lying
between the fixed boundary and deep stream of the river Ghagra,
and

(ii) all the territories of Shahbad district of the State of Bihar lying
between the fixed boundary and the deep stream of the river F
Ganga."

Thus the various territories mentioned in section 3( I) (b) (ii) were transferred
from Bihar to UP. Section 3(2) states that the 'fv:ed boundary' in relation to
each of the river Ganga and Ghagra shall be demarcated by an authority
appointed in this behalf by the Central Government so as to be generally in G
conformity with the Boundary line described in the schedule in relation to that
river, provided that in the process of such demarcation, the said authority
shall have power to rationalise to the extent considered necessary by him, the
boundary alignment between the high banks of the river Ganga or the river
Ghagra, as the case may be, and in particular the said authority shall try-
(a) to ensure, as far as possible, the stability of the boundary pillars and the H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A recognition of the boundary alignment both during the dry and flood seasons;
and (b) to avoid, as far as possible, the splitting up of the existing abadis.

Sub-section (3) of Section 3 states that the demarcation of the said
authority on any matter relating to the interpretation of any part of the
B description of the boundary given in the schedule (including the determination
of the relevant record referred to in the Explanatory Note to the Schedule)
shall be final ; and (b) the said authority shall have power, to determine the
location of the points at which the boundary pillars shall be constructed and
to specify the State Government which shall be responsible for the construction
and maintenance of the boundary pillars or such points and the decision of
C the authority on these matters shall be final; and (c) the said authority can,
for the aforesaid purpose, survey any area in the vicinity of the boundary
line etc.

Sub-section (4) of Section 3 states that the authority shall also prepare
a map of the transferred territories showing.
D
(a) the deep stream of the river Ghagra or the river Ganga, as the case
may be, and the fixed boundary in relation to that river ;

(b) the names and boundaries of the villages in the transferred
territories, as indicated by the State Government having jurisdiction
E over the territories before their transfers, with reference to the relevant
records of that Government in force immediately before the preparation
of such map, and found such map to the Central Government, who
shall cause it to be published in the transferred territories in such
manner as it thinks fit.
F
Sub-Clause (5) of Section 3 states that as from the appointed day, the State
Government of Bihar and UP shall, by orders in the official gazettes provide
for the administration of the territories transferred to that State under Section
3(1) by including them or any part of them in such district, sub-division,
Police Station or other administrative unit as may be specified in the order.
G
Section 4 of the Act deals with the 'Amendment of the First Schedule
of the Constitution' and states as follows:

'Section 4 : Amendment of the First Schedule to the Constitution :
As from the appointed day, in the First Schedule to the Constitution,
H under the heading "I. THE STATES",
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 601
(a) for the entry against "3 Bihar", the following shall be substituted A
namely:-

"the territories which immediately before the commencement
of this Constitution were either comprised in the province of
Bihar or were being administered as if they formed part of that
province and the territories specified in clause (a) of sub- B
section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration
of Boundaries) Act, 1968, but excluding the territories specified
in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Bihar and West Bengal
(Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956, and the territories specified
in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the first mentioned C
Act.";
(b) for the entry against "13. Uttar Pradesh", the following shall be
substituted, namely:-
"The territories which immediately before the commencement
of this Constitution were either comprised in the Province known D
as the United Provinces or were being administered as if they
formed part of that province and the territories specified in
clause (b) of sub-section ( l) of section 3 of the Bihar and Uttar
Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968, but excluding
the territories specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
3 of that Act." E
The Schedule to the 1968 Act cont~ins an Explanatory Note stating
that the village boundaries and names mentioned in the Schedule have reference
to boundaries and names as shown in the sheets of large-scale surveys
covering relevant areas of Saran and Shahbad Districts of the State of Bihar
and Ballia districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh, conducted by the Survey F
of India during the period 1881-83, and where such sheets are not available,
as shown in any other record which the State Governments of Bihar and Uttar
Pradesh agree to be relevant, within one month from the commencement of
the Act or default of Such agreement, which the authority referred to in sub-
section (2) of section 3 may determine to be the relevant record. It is also G
stated that the Ganga and Ghagra rivers and their high banks wherever
mentioned in this Schedule, have reference to the geographical river or high
banks positions, as the case may be, as shown in the survey records mentioned
above. The Schedule then deals with 'Ganga Sector' in 10 paragraphs and the
'Ghagra Sector' in 8 paragraphs. In para 5 relating to Ganga Sector-we find
reference to Nainijor in Bihar and Hansnagar in Uttar Pradesh. H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (iii) Effect of the 1968 Act: boundaries not frozen as on 26.1.50 :

Having set out the events leading to the passing of the 1968 Act and
having referred to some of the relevant provisions of the Act, we shall now
deal with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that
the boundary between Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as on 26.1.1950 should be
B treated as frozen and that no part of the disputed land must be deemed to
have been transferred from State of Bihar to Uttar Pradesh. According to the
appellants, the entire area of abouf 2000 acres was right from 1881-83 part of
Hansnagar on UP side and remained so on 26.1.1950 and that the subsequent
change in the deep stream in 1961-an event which took place between 1950
C and 1968-had to be ignored and, therefore, there was no question of transfer
of any land from Bihar State to UP under section 3 of the 1968 Act as from
the 'appointed day'.

This contention of the appellants cannot be accepted. It ignores the
clear provisions of the Constitution oflndia in Article 3. Under that provision,
D Parliament has been empowered to form new States and alter the areas,
boundaries or names of existing States. In 1956, the boundaries between Bihar
and West Bengal were adjusted under the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer
of Territories) Act, 1956 and likewise in 1968, the boundaries between Bihar
and Uttar Pradesh were adjusted. The provisions of section 3 of the 1968 Act
-
are clear that some territories were transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar
E while some other territories were transferred from Bihar to UP. It is stated
under section 3( l) (b) (ii) that these shall be added to the State of Uttar
Pradesh,

"all the territories of Shahbad District of the State of Bihar lying
between the fixed boundary and the deep stream of the river Ganga."
F
and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the State of Bihar.
It is clear, therefore, that by force of the law made by Parliament, there was
indeed a transfer of territory from Shahbad District of Bihar to Uttar Pradesh.

As pointed out in Re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves,
G [l 960] 3 SCR 250 by this Court, Article 3 deals with the "internal adjustment
inter se of the territories of the Constituent States of India". Again in Babula/
Parate v. The State of Bombay and Another, [1960 1 SCR 605, it was pointed
out that

"unlike some other federal legislatures, Parliament, representing the
H people of India as a whole, has been vested with the exclusive power
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 603
of admitting or establishing new States, increasing or diminishing the A
area of an existing State or altering its boundaries, the legislature or
legislatures of the States concerned having only the right to an
expression of views on the proposals."

It is, therefore, clear that the territories of the States as on 26.1.1950
was not frozen and the Constitution provided for prospective changes including B
alteration of boundaries. So far as the State of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were
concerned such changes were incorporated in the 1968 Act resulting in some
territory in Shahbad District of Bihar lying between the fixed boundary and
the deep stream of the river Ganga being transferred from Bihar State to the
State of UP.
c
The High Court was, therefore, clearly right in rejecting the above
contention of the appellants and in holding as follows:

"It has to be noted as laid down in State of West Bengal v. Union of
India, AIR (1963) SC 1241 that under Article 3 of the Constitution,
Parliament has sweeping powers. It can form a new State by separation D
of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or by
uniting any territory to a part of any State, increase the area of any
State; diminish the area of any State; alter the boundaries of any State
and alter the name of any State."

We, therefore, decide Point 1 against the appellants. E
Point 2 :

So far as the question whether the land in Hansnagar village of UP was
far less in 1840 and land from the three disputed villages of Bihar got added
thereto so as to swell to the present extent, whether these three villages were F
non-existent or ghost villages of Bihar created fictitiously by the officials of
the State of Bihar and other related matters-are questions which cannot, as
rightly held by the High Court, be decided in writ jurisdiction inasmuch as
a lot of oral and documentary evidence is to be adduced and considered by
the Courts or authorities under the UP Acts. The High Court did not rightly G
go into the said questions.

When the High Court had itself felt that these matters could not be
dealt with in writ jurisdiction, we would not tak~ upon ourselves the burden
or the responsibility of deciding these issues.

(i) Minutes dated 19.10.1984, Board's order dated 10.10.1985 and H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A notification dated 26. 7. I973:
So far as the minutes of the meeting dated 19.10.1984 and the direction
of the Board of Revenue dated 10.10.1985 and the notification of the UP
Governmentdated 26.7.1973 issued pursuant thereto, they are administrative
in nature and no prior notice to the appellants was necessary, as held by the
B High Court.

Again, so far as the minutes dated 19.10.1984 are concerned, para 2
refers to a direction by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1624 of 1981
whereby the Court directed the two State Governments and the Union of India
to sort out the issue relating to the non-inclusion of the three villages in the
C survey map and consequently in the Schedule of the 1968 Act. The minutes
say that the Schedule no doubt reproduced the boundaries as per survey-
maps of 1881-83 as recommended by Shri Trivedi's arbitral award but these
three villages have now been shown in the map prepared under section 3(4)
of the 1968 Act on the information given to them by the Government ofBihar
D with reference to their service records. The Survey of India produced the
relevant map and drew pointed attention to the note therein to that effect. The
minutes of 19.10.1984 point out that while the Schedule in the 1968 Act lays
down the precise alignment of the fixed boundaries for the purpose of the
demarcation thereof on the ground, the map was intended to facilitate
identification by the administrative authorities and the people of the transferred
E territories as existing at the time of transfer and, therefore, the purposes of
the Schedule and the maps was different and there was no conflict between
them. The minutes say that there was, therefore, no need for amendment of
the Schedule and further the Schedule was strictly in conformity with the
arbitral award. Any amendment to the Schedule would, according to these
F minutes, amount to tampering with the very award which had been accepted
by both the State Governments. These minutes, it is obvious, do not amount
to any final adjudication of the existence of the three disputed villages. That
question has to be decided separately. That is why the High Court held in ,
para 44 that these minutes cannot be said to be without jurisdiction but that
the matter relating to the existence of the villages etc. is to be adjudicated
G separately.

In para 3 of the said minutes, it stated that the representative of the
Bihar Government observed that the Chief Secretaries of both the State
Governments had agreed at a meeting held in the Ministry on 10.7.1970 that
the cases where both the States had maintained separate sets of records in
H respect of the same land, the records maintained by the transferring State
R.B. RA! v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 605

should be presumed to be correct unless proved otherwise in a Court of A
Competent jurisdiction. The Bihar Government officials pointed out that
pursuant to that agreement, the Bihar Government had transferred the records
pertaining to the three villages in question but that the UP Government had
not accorded recognition to them and the Bihar officials insisted that the
rights of tenants should be determined with reference to the position obtaining B
on 10.6.1970 when the transfer of territories took place and that the Bihar
records, in respect of the three villages be given recognition by the UP
Government in accordance with the agreement dated 10.7.1970 of the Chief
Secretaries. On the other hand, the UP officials contended that the Bihar
records of rights (Khatiyans) were incomplete and that the lands comprised
in these three villages were now part of Hansnagar since 1881-83 in the C
absence of separate identity of those villages at that time and that the
residents of Hansnagar woul<l, therefore, be having tenancy rights over the
land.

Para 3 of the minutes dated 19.10. 1984 then states that the UP
Government have undertaken survey and settlement operations under the D
State Land Revenue Act in Ballia District. "which covered the three transferred
villages also". The UP officials stated that in the course of those proceedings,
parchis would be issued to all persons who either were in actual possession
of land or were claiming rights of ownership and cultivation thereon. They
further contended that the whole process was a judicial process and that any E
person aggrieved by the decision of the revenue court had a right of appeal.

On these rival contentions, the minutes dated 19 .10.1984 state that it
was finally agreed that

(1) the UP Government may write to the Bihar government specifying F
the basic records required in respect of the lands comprised in the three
transferred villages in question and the Bihar Government would comply with
their n~guirement within a month of receipt of the relevant communication
from the UP Government.

(2) the UP Government may retain the name of the villages as appearing G
in the records transferred by the Bihar Government.

(3) Boundary pillars may be fixed on ground in accordance with the
provisions of the 1968 Act.

The High Court, in our view, rightly held in para 44 that these minutes H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A could not be said to be without jurisdiction. These do not, however, amount
any adjudication regarding the existence of the Bihar villages. That question
had to be decided separately by the courts of competent jurisdiction.

(ii) Board of Revenue's direction dated JO. 10.85 and notification dated
26. 7.1973:
B
Coming to para 1 of the Board of Revenue (UP)'s letter to the Collector
dated I 0.10.85 regarding preparation of records and maps of areas in UP and
the directions (A) to (I), various directions were issued by the Board to the
Collector in regard to adjudication of the matter under section 54 of the Act
summarily and for getting the process of survey and preparation of records
C completed as early as possible. Consequently by notification dated 26.7.1973
of the UP Government, the land in the village of Hansnagar and the three
villages were placed under survey and record operations. The proceedings of
the Board dated 10.10.1985 and the notification were rightly held, in para 44
of the High Court judgment, to be within jurisdiction of the said authorities.
D
The above proceedings of the Board dated 10.10.1985 and the notification
dated 26.7.1973 did not also amount to any adjudication on the merits of the
existence of these three villages or as to whether the land in the three villages
was part of the land transferred from Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act. The
High Court rightly held, in regard to the notification in the 1968 Act, boundaries
E have been fixed with reference to the survey of 1881-83 and that if the three
villages or survey and physical verification were found to exist, it would have
to be ascertained in which village of UP, according to the survey of 1881-83,
they Jay.

The High Court also rightly held that entries in the records could be
F scored off or ignored only after notice under section 54(2) of the UP Land
Revenue Act. If names found in the records maintained by each of the State
were, in regard to same land, different than the correctness of either of the
entries had to be determined under or resolved only in the manner prescribed
under sections 54, 40, 41 or 43 of the UP Land Revenue Act. The Assistant
G Records Officer could dispose of the matter under section 54 (6) of the said
Act. The decision of the said officer was appealable under section 210 of the
UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and there was also a revision to the Board of
Revenue, UP under section 219. The High Court also rightly allowed advocates
to appear and the Assistant Records Officer to take oral evidenc~ven in
a summary way-and rightly set aside that part of the orders of the Board
H of Revenue. The High Court was also right in directing consolidation of the
R.B. RAJ v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO,J.] 607
cases under section 192-A of the Act to avoid multiplicity of the evidence/ A
hearings and in rejecting the rest of the reliefs.

Considerable reliance was placed for the appellants before us upon an
order passed in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Buxer on 22.8.1928 declaring the second party (the UP parties) to
be in possession and raising certain doubts about the existence of certain B
Bihar villages. It is true that there was such a decision in section 145 Cr. P.C.
proceedings but it is well-settled that such an adjudication under Section 145
Cr. P.C. cannot be treated as equal to an adjudication on title by a Civil Court.
It will be for the appropriate competent court to consider the relevance and
admissibility of the observation made in the said order and adjudicate on the C
question of title after receiving oral and documentary evidence. Point 2 is
decided accordingly.

Point 3:

The High Court proceeded on the basis that the UP statutes such as D
the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 applied to the territories transferred from
Bihar to UP under the 1968 Act. We do not decide whether this assumption
is correct.

Arguments were, however, advanced before us as to the meaning of
section 26 of the 1968 Act. That section reads as follows: E
"Section 26 : Territorial extent of laws: The provisions of section 3
shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to
which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends
or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of F
Bihar or Uttar Pradesh shall, until otherwise provided by a competent
legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the
territories within that State immediately before the appointed day."

The above provision is, it will be noticed, pari materia with section 119 of
the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Section 119 of that Act has been G
interpreted by this Court in several cases. In particular in Rattan Lal & Co.
v. Assessing Authority, Patiala, (1969] 2 SCR 544, a Constitution Bench of this
Court held that the laws in force in the transferred territories before such
transfer shall continue to apply to those areas after transfer until altered by
the Legislature of the transferee State. This Court stated, in the context of
Section 119 as follows: H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R..

A "The scheme of the States Reorganisation Act makes the Jaws
applicable to the new areas until superceded, amended or altered by
the appropriate legislature in the new States."

The same principle was reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir
Singh, [1976] 3 SCC 242 (at p. 248) while dealing with section 88 of the Punjab
B Reorganisation Act, 1966 which section is again similar to section 26 of the
1968 Act. It was held that mere addition of territory by one State to another
State did not result in automatic abrogation of the Jaws in force in such
territory and that until the State to which the territory was transferred, modified
the said laws in force by extension of the laws prevailing in the transferee
C State-to the transferred territory, the previous Jaws in force in the territory
shall continue to operate. Balbir Singh's case was followed again recently in
I>hayanand v. Union of India, [1996] 7 SCC 47.

In other words, the effect of Section 26 of the 1968 Act is that even after
the transfer of some territories from Bihar to Uttar Pradesh, the Bihar Jaws in
D force in those areas before such transfer shall continue to apply in those
territories till the laws of the transferee State of UP are extended to the areas
so transferred to UP State.

Now the High Court proceeded on the basis that the UP Land Revenue
Act, 1901 was extended to the territories transferred from Bihar to UP under
E the 1968 Act. Counsel before us proceeded further on the basis that the UP
Zamindari & Land Reforms Act, 1950 was also extended to the territories
transferred from Bihar to UP. We have not been able to verify this fact and
these assumptions will be matters for verification when the matter goes back.

Before we leave the discussion under Point 3, it is necessary to refer
F to certain observations in the judgment of this Court in Ram Janam v. Radha
Krishan Chaube, [1996] 8 SCC 277. That Judgment reversed the Judgment of
the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Radha Krishan
Chaube v. Ram Janam, [1981] Allahabad L.J. 940 on a narrow point. In that
case, the learned Single Judge has set out the history preceding the passing
G of the 1968 Act. The High Court noticed that the suit under sections 59 &
61 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939 was filed on 16.11.62 in the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, UP but the land in question stood transferred to
UP only after the 1968 Act was passed. The learned single Judge held that
the plaint was filed in a Court in UP which had no jurisdiction inasmuch as
the lands were de jure part of Bihar State as on 16.11.62 and the fact that
H subsequently, after 1968 the area stood statutorily transferred by section 3 of
R.B. RA! v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 609
the 1968 Act to UP State, could not validate the plaint even if, as on the date A
of decree of the trial court and first appellate court, the area might have come
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in UP. On that reasoning, the .
High Court allowed the Second Appeal of 1974 by judgment on 7.5.1981 and
dismissed the suit.

This Court in appeal, after referring to the history of the boundary B
dispute and to section 26 of the Act observed in para 7 that "As on the date
of decree, the Boundaries Act had come into force and consequently even
the doubtful territorial jurisdiction of the trial court stands rectified on the
date when the decree was granted by the trial court. Consequently, the Act
applies to the rights claimed thereunder. The appellant, therefore, is entitled C
to the relief sought for in the suit." This Court restored the decree of the lower
courts and set aside the judgment of the High Court. With respect, we agree
with this part of the Judgment. We are also of the view that the said conclusion
of this Court was based upon the assumption that by the date of decree the
area stood transferred to UP State by the 1968 Act and also on the further
assumption that the UP statute was territorially extended to the area in D
question by the date of the decree of the trial court. If those assumptions
were true, the principle that was applied was, with respect, correct-for if a
court in which a suit is filed has no jurisdiction to take up the case on the
date of plaint, it is sufficient if it acquires jurisdiction by the date of decree.
There can be no dispute about such preposition. That was sufficient for the E
purpose of allowing the appeal.

There are, however, certain observations in the Judgment that even
from 1959 when de facto the land accreted to UP, the UP laws applied. These
observations, in our view, were obiter and were not necessary for the case
and run counter to the three decisions of this Court cited above and to Rattan F
Lal's case decided by Constitution Bench of this Court. The law is clear that
even after addition of territory the previous laws operating on these areas will
continue, till the transferee State extends its laws to the transferred territory.

In the case before us, as already stated, the High Court has directed and
adjudication of rights relating to possession and title by applying UP Land G
Revenue Act, 190 I, on the assumption that that Act. stood extended to the
transferred territories. If, in fact, there has been such an extension, the directions
of the High Court are correct. The factum of such extension of laws has, as
already stated, not placed before us, but will be a matter for verification when
the matters relating to possession and title go back for adj~dication. Point 3
is decided accordingly. H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Point 4 :

Learned counsel for the parties have, however, pointed out that
now record of rights operations are going on.

Question is as to whether any relief other than that granted by the
B High Court can be given.

We shall briefly refer to the scheme of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901
Section 32 in Chapter III of the above said Act of 190 I deals with record of
rights and sections 39, 40 deal with correction of mistakes and settlement of
c disputes. Under section 54, for revising maps and records, the Assistant
Records Officer shall cause survey, map correction to be made after issue of
notice to affected parties. Orders passed by Assistant Records Officer under
section 54 (6) are final subject to appeal under section 210 and revision under
section 219. Section 40 (2) pennits the Collector ffehsildar to decide questions
of possession and if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in
D possession, he shall ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best
entitled to the property and shall put such person in possession. Section
40A, however, say that no order under sections 33, 35, 39, 40, 41 or 54 shall
bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in a
holding. Section 57 of the Act also states that entries or decisions shall not
affect the right of any person to claim and establish in the 'Civil Court' any

J E
interest in land which requires to be recorded in the registers prescribed under
section 32. Therefore, discussion on question of title if given under the UP
Land Revenue Act, 190 I, would not put an end to litigation.

It was, therefore, suggested that suits on title could be filed under the
F UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950 to prove title and that
instead of allowing the matters to start under section 229 of that Act and go
up in appeals, the parties might be directed to move the Commissioner directly
by fresh suits/applications for proof of title and possession. In other words,
the argument is that instead of submitting the parties to one series of litigation
unde.rthe UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and a second series of litigation of title
G under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, directions
could be issued by this Court to have representative actions under order Rule
8 CPC on title and possession initiated before the Commissioner (rather than
before the lowest authority) under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 as a Court of original jurisdiction so as to avoid delay in
H litigation from stage to stage.

\
i
r
R.B. RAI v. U.0.1. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 611
It is true that the disputes between the parties from Bihar side and the A
UP side are long standing and, several matters are already pending before the
Assistant Records Officer under the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. It is also
true that they are all individual matters and not representative actions. No
doubt the High Court has ordered consolidation.

The suggestion of counsel that fresh suits could be filed under the UP B
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on questions of title and
possession, is worth consideration. But we do not, in our jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, propose to decide whether such a
course of action under the 1950 Act would be preferable. The feasibility of
the suggestion has to be decided upon a full hearing. We would, therefore, C
think that it would be more appropriate to leave this question to be decided
by the High Court of Allahabad.

We, therefore, while affirming the judgment of the High Court, remit the
matter to the High Court to find out the feasibility of representative actions
being filed under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. D
If the High Court thinks it feasible to have the disputes decided under the
1950 Act, and at a higher level by the Commissioner or other officer, it will
be open to the High Court to issue appropriate directions. If the High Court
thinks that such a procedure is not feasible it will be for the High Court to
so decide and leave the parties to chose their further remedies after the
conclusion of the cases under the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. The matter E
is remitted to the High Court on this limited aspect. The High Court will issue
notice to the parties and decide this aspect as early as possible.

Subject to the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed but, in the
circumstances, without costs.
F
S:V.K.L Appeal dismissed.