Holding

Land vested in or entrusted to a Gaon Sabha or held by a tenure‑holder under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is excluded from the definition of "public premises" and therefore the Public Premises Act does not apply.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand) appealed against a High Court order that had allowed the writ petition of Rabindra Singh, who occupied a 4.10‑bigha plot of agricultural land. The central question was whether land covered by Section 3(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 falls within the definition of "public premises" under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The Supreme Court examined Sections 2(b) and 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, which expressly exclude land vested in or entrusted to a Gaon Sabha or any other local authority and land held by a tenure‑holder under land‑tenure laws. Relying on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Baldeo Raj v. State of UP and Kripal Singh v. D.J. Nainital, the Court held that such lands are not "premises" and therefore not "public premises". Consequently, the Public Premises Act could not be invoked to evict the occupier; eviction must proceed under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether land covered by Section 3(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is deemed a "public premises" under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
Whether Sections 2(b) and 2(e) of the Public Premises Act exclude land held by a tenure‑holder from its operation.
Whether the State can issue a notice and evict the occupier under the Public Premises Act.

Legislation cited

United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 117, s. 1228, s. 122-B, s. 3(14)

Subjects

Public premisesEvictionUnauthorized occupationLand reformsTenure holderUttar PradeshUttarakhandStatutory interpretationZamindari abolition

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 605

STATE OF U.P. (NOW UTTARAKHAND). A
V.
RABINDRA SINGH
Civil Appeal No. 2831 of 2009
APRIL 27, 2009
B
(MARKANDEY "KATJU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1972 - ss. 2(b} and 2(e) -Applicability of the
Public Premises Act - Held: Land covered under the Land
Reforms Act would not be governed by the Public Premises C
Act, more particularly in view of the specific exclusion as ·
provided in ss. 2(b) and 2(e) thereof - If the land.held by a ~
tenure-holder under any law relating to land tenure is not
"premise", then it cannot become "public premises" under ce
s.2(e) - UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 o
- s.3(14). ·
The question which arose for consideration in the
. present appeals was whether the lands which are
covered by the definition in s.3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 can 'be said to be E
public premises and, therefore, coverecl under the U.P.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1972.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
HELD: The land covered under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not be
governed by the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, more particularly in
view of the specific exclusion as provided in Sections 2(b) G
and 2(e) thereof. Even if Section 2(e) is broadly read, the
.. land held by tenure holder is not covered. It is axiomatic
that if the land held by a tenure-holder under any law
relating to land tenure is not "premise", then it cannot
605 H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R

A become "public premises" under Section 2(e) of the Public
Premises Act. [Para 12] [614-C-E]
Baldeo Raj v. State of UP & Ors. 1984 AWC 568 and
Kripal Singh v DJ Nainital & Ors. 1988 RD 188 - approved.

B Case Law Reference
1984 AWC 568 approved Para 7
1988 RD 188 approved Para 7
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2831
c of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 23.11.2007 of the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 3709
•
(M/S) of 2001
D WITH
Civil Appeal No. 2832 of 2009
Pinky Anand, P.N. Gupta, Vaibhav Jain, with him for the
Appellant(s).
E
Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, for the
Respondents.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by -:

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
F
1. Leave granted.
2. This judgment will dispose of the SLP (C) 11653 of 2008
as also SLP (C) 25729 of 2008 since both the appeals involve
identical points regarding the applicability of UP Public
G Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 to
the land possessed by the respondents, more particularly, the ...
lands vested in or entrusted to the management of the Gaon
Sabha and or any other local authority under any law relating to
land tenures.
H
STATE OF U.P (NOW UTTARAKHAND) V. 607
RABINDRA SINGH [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

3. By way of the present appeal the State of Uttar Pradesh, A
now State of uttarakhand challenges the judgment of the t':ligh
Court whereby the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed
by the respondent herei~. Shri Rabindra Singh.
4. Factual scenario is as follows:
B
The dispute relates to a land measuring 4.10 bighas in
...... Khasra Plot No.1371/24/1 situated in village Saran. The said
--
land was in possession of the respondent since 1384 Fasli.
__,,,,,_ The High Court has allowed the Writ Petitions by these two
judgments holding that such lands would not be covered within c,
the definition of "public premises" under the UP Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter
called the 'Public Premises Act', for short). Basically the question
boils down as to whether the lands which are covered by the
definition in Section 3(14) of the UP Zamindari Abolition and
D
Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be said to be public premises
and, therefore, covered under the Public Premises Act.
5. We shall take up .the facts in this appeal arising out of
SLP (C) 11653 of 2008. The respondent Rabindra Singh
possessed aforementioned land since the year 1384 Fasli. He E
claimed to be in cultivating possession like other respondents.
--t
He was served with notice under Section 4 (1) of the Public
.,
Premises Act directing him to show cause as to why he should
~
not be evicted from the land Khasra plot no. 1371 /24/1,
measuring 4.10 big has situated in village Saran, Tehsil Bazpur F
as he was in unauthorized occupation of the land. He filed his
written statements before the prescribed authority, namely, Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur contending that he was also'in
possession of land measuring 26.13 bighas and the said land
and the disputed land became a compact plot and that he was G.
in possession of the said plot since 1960, and, therefore, he
was prepared to get it regularized. Along with the writ statement,
he also filed the map and Khatauni of the land. In the evidence
led before the authority he supported his case by showing that
the disputed land was earlier in the shape of a drain and he had
H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A improved it and made it capable of cultivation. There are two
witnesses examined by him to support his case of continuous
possession. As against this, in his evidence the Patwari of the
village stated that the respondent was in unauthorized
possession since 1384 Fasli and was for public utility. Without
B giving any reasons, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nainital
straightway recorded that the possession of Rabindra Singh
was unauthorized and, therefore, in exercise of the power under. '"
sub Section 1 of Section 5 of the Public Premises Act he directed
to evict the writ-petitioner within 30 days.

C 6. Writ petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge
Nainital wherein the District Judge without any discussion
recorded that the disputed land was public premise and the
occupant of the appellant was under Class IV and since the
appellant did not have any authority to occupy he could not resist
D his eviction. The appeal was dismissed.
7. The matter was taken up before the Allahabad High
Court by way of a writ petition. Eventually since the land was in
newly created State of Uttarakhand the matter was transferred
to the Uttarakhand High court. It is contended that the High Court
E also noted the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner
(respondent herein) that no notice could be issued in respect of
the land over eviction as the land was in cultivating possession
of the concerned cultivator. It was contended in the counter
affidavit on behalf of the State (appellant herein) that the land in
F dispute was not allotted to the writ petitioner and, therefore, his
occupation was unauthorized and he was recorded as Class IV
tenant since 1384 Fasli. It was also pointed out that the writ
petitioner had no right to regularization in respect of the land of
which he was in possession. The High Court, however, relied
G on the earlier judgment dated 25.05.2006 passed in Writ
Petition No. 3235 of 2001, namely, Krishnakant vi First JI •

Additional District Judge, Nainital which was disposed of along
with 41 other writ petitions. There the Court had held that the
agricultural land which was occupied by a tenure holder hence
H the proceedings under the Public Premises Act were not
STATE OF U.P. (NOW UTTARAKHAND) V. 609
RABINDRA SINGH [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

applicable and the said unauthorized occupant could be evicted, A
only underfhe provisions of the UP ZamindariAbolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950. It was further noted by the High Court that
such a view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Baldeo
Raj V State of UP & Ors. 1984 AWC 568 and Kripal SinfJh V
OJ Nainital & Ors. 1988 RD 188. The High Court further took B
note of the definition of the term 'public premises' as well as the
term 'land' as defined in UP Jamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 covered by Section 3 (14) of the Act. The
High Court also took note that it was never denied by the State
that the land in question was in cultivating possession of the c
writ petitioners. The High Court further not~d that the land vest€cl
in or entrusted to the Gaon Sabha and local authority or under
any other law relating to the land tenure was excluded from the
operation of the Public Premises Act and, therefore, the
agricultural land belonging to the Gaon Sabha could not be said
0
to be the land covered under the Public Premises. The High·
Court, therefore, chose to follow the aforementioned decisions
in Baldeo Raj's case (cited supra) and Kripal Singh's case
(cited supra).
8. In the other case the judgment in Krishnakant's case E
(cited supra) with which as many as 41 other cases were decided
and disposed of is challenged. In Krishnakant's case (cited
supra) also the learned Single Judge after discussing the
provisions of both the Act referred to by us earlier as also the
definition of the term 'premises' in the Public Premises Act came · F
to the similar conclusion. The learned single Judge of the
Uttarankhand High Court, hence, relied upon the Baldeo Raj's
case (cited supra) as also Kripal Singh's case (cited supra). It
is on that basis that in both the cases the Writ Petitions filed by .
the cultivating possessors were allowed. Both these judgments G
have fallen for our consideration.
9. $mt. Pinki Anand, learned Senior Advocate along with
Shri P.N. Gupta and Sflri Vaibhav Jain assailed the impugned
judgments. We had a specific query to the learned Senior
counsel as to whether the aforementioned relied upon H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A judgments in Baldeo Raj's case (cited supra) and Kripal Singh's
case (cited supra) were challenged by the said judgment. The
learned Senior counsel was unable to answer as to what
happened to these judgments. We, therefore, presume that
those judgments are still held good law and have been accepted
B as such by at least the State of Uttar Pradesh. It must be noted
that Baldev Raj's case (cited supra) continues to be dominating
the scene since 1984 while Kripa/ Singh's case (cited supra)
continues to be in the field from 1988. It, therefore, goes without
saying that the interpretation put forward by the Allahabad High
c Court on these premises holds good for about 25 years on the
legal scenario. We must, therefore, take this factor also into
account as to whether it would be proper for us to disturb the
settled law which is ruling the field for last 25 years.

10. We have seen both the aforementioned decisions of
D the Allahabad High Court in Baldeo Raj's case as well as in
Kripa/ Singh's case (cited supra). The factual situation
regarding the position of the respondents is absolutely identical.
Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the law laid
down in both these cases squarely apply to the facts of the
E . present case.
11. We will now proceed to decide upon the correctness ~
of these two judgments. In Baldeo Raj's case the learned Single
Judge considered the expression "public premises" in Section
2(e) of the Act as was amended by the U.P. Act No.28of1976.
F It was found that the definition as amended excluded the land
vested in or entrusted to the management of a Gaon Sabha or
any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures.
This the learned Judge found on the basis of clause (i) of the
definition in that Section. The learned Judge then straightaway
G came to the conclusion that the provisions contained in Section
416, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provided
that the right, title or interest of the intermediaries came to be
vested in the State and State thereby also acquired right, title or
interest over the land held as 'Talab' or 'Jheel'. The learned
H Judge further rightly found that Section 117, U .P. Zamindari
STATE OF U.P. (NOW UTTARAKHAND) V. 611
RABINDRA SINGH [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
~
Abolition and Land Reforms Act made it clear that the A
superintendence, management and control of such land was
vested in Gaon Sabha. It was also noted that the State
Government was empowered to transfer this superinteodence,
mana1gement and control from Gaon Sabha to some other local
authorhy or vice versa. Relying on the Khatauni in 1383-85 fasli B
the learned Judge found that the land in question was recorded
~
as Talab/Jheel. The learned Judge further noted that the names
of the petitioners in that cases were recorded in the Khasra of
1386 fasli under class 4 of the Khatauni. The learned Judge
then proceeded to consider the provisions of Section 122-B c
which provided for the eviction against those who were in
unauthorized occupation over such land. On that basis the
learned Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the definition ·
of "public premises" in the Public Premises Act deliberately
excluded ·from its purview the land vesting in Gaon Sabha or
D
some other local authority for which provisions existed in the
law relating to land tenures and the provisions of Public
Premises Act could not be pressed in service for ousting the
tenure holder. More or less the same conclusion has been
reached in Kripal Singh's case where the learned Judge
specifically referred to the pleadings of the parties and came to E
the conclusion that the tenure holder therein was classified as
Sirdar and had become a Bhumidar. The definition of "premises"
., in the Public Premises Act given under Section 2(b) came to
be considered which is as under:
F
"2(b) "Premises means any land (including any forest land
or trees standing thereon, or covered by water, or a road
maintained by the State Government or land appurtenant
to such road) or any building and includes: .
i) the garden, grounds, and out-houses, if any G
~ appertaining to such building or part of a building, and
ii) any fitting or fixtures affixed to or any furniture supplied
with such building or part of a building for the more
beneficial enjoyment thereof:
H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 7 S.C.R.

f'.
A but does not include an)'.'. land which for the time is held
bk'. a tenureholder under an)'.'. law relating to land-tenture
(emphasis supplied)

i) is.vested in or entrusted to the managementi of Gaon
Sabha or any other local authority or
B
ii) is held by a tenure holder under the United Provinces
Tenancy Act, 1939, the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari ..
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Uttar
Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land
c Reforms Act, 1956, the Jaunsar-Bawar Zmindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, the Kumaun
and Uttarkhand Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1960, the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation
of Holidings Act, 1953, or the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960;"
D
Section 2(e) was also considered which is as under:

"2{e) Public premises means any premises belonging
to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the
State .Government and includes any premises belonging
E to or taken on lease by or on behalf of

i) any company defined

ii) any local authority;

F iii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in
Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a local
authority) owned or controlled by the State
~overnment, or

iv) any society ................
G
•.I
And also includes ,.
i) Nazul land or any other premises entrusted to the
management of a local authority (including any
building· built with Government funds, on land
H belonging to the State Government after the
STATE OF U.P (NOW UTTARAKHAND) V. 613
RABINDRA SINGH [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

entrustment of the land to the local authority, not being A
land vested in or entrusted to the management of a
Gaon Sabha or any other local authority under any
.law relating to land tenure); -
ii) any premises acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act , 1894 with the consent of the State Government 8
for a company (as defined in that Act) and held by
that company under an agreement executed under
Section 41 of that providing for re-entry by the State
Government in certain conditions."
c
Section 2(a) and 2(e) excluded the operation of Public
Premises Act in respect of the lands covered by U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The learned Judge has
further given a detailed explanation as to why the said exclusion
became clearer. The learned Judge states:
D
"To me, it appears that the provision for excluding land of
such tenure holders has a special purpose. For a tenure
holder this land is generally a source of his and his family's
livelihood particularly in our State of Uttar Pradesh where
the majority of citizens consists of Agriculturist. Needless E
to say, the Act has a drastic method of ejectment. Though
a·trespasser can certainly be ejected under the common
law-whether it be civil or revenue, the Act, however, sets
aside those procedures and instead empowers the
)
prescribed authority to proceed in a manner which lays F
down a much quicker and faster method of ejecting a
trespasser. In the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act we find sufficient
safeguards for the Gaon Sabha and other authorities to
eject a trespasser. if the land can be claimed to have
vested in them (see Section 1228) (Emphasis supplied G
by us). Thus the land of such tenure holders as the
petitioner should not be governed by the provisions of the
Act, appears to be one of the main objectives, to attain
which the exception has been carved out in the definition
clause by the legislature. Even from the other provisions
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A of the Act it is clear that the possession alone whether of
the original Adhivasi or of the transferee Adhivasi has to
be seen by the Prescribed Authority and attempt to trace
his title will be futile in the present proceedings under the
Act. Under the circumstances it must be held that but for
B the stop which may be available under the land tenure
laws, the provisions of the Act will be wholly inapplicable
for the ejectment of the petitioner."
12. We have very carefully considered the judgments as
well as the provisions and we are in no doubt that the view taken
C by the Allahabad High Court was a correct view of the matter.
'Ne fully agree with the reasons given by the Allahabad High
Court in both Baldeo Raj and Kripal Singh's cases and,
therefore, hold that the land covered under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not be governed
D by the Public Premises Act, more particularly in view of the
specific exclusion as provided in Sections 2(b) and 2(e) thereof.
Even if Section 2(e) is broadly read, the land held- by Tenure
holder is not covered. It is axiomatic that if the land held by a
tenure-holder under any law relating to land tenure is not
E "premise", then it cannot become "public premises" under
Section 2(e) of the Act. We are satisfied with the impugned
judgments which wholly rely on the above mentioned two
decisions of the Allahabad High Court.
13. Both the appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand
F deserve to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.