Supreme Court clarifies the transfer of Bhumidhari rights in Uttar Pradesh land dispute: Rakesh & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors. (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 08 March 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 222

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a person sell land before they officially own it? This question was at the heart of a dispute before the Supreme Court of India. The case involved a Sirdar tenant who sold land before receiving official Bhumidhari rights. The Court examined the validity of such a sale and the impact of subsequent land reforms in Uttar Pradesh. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around land in Village Pilkhana, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Pursottam was a Sirdar tenant of agricultural plots numbered 243, 503, and a 1/3rd share in plot 521. On 25 November 1974, Pursottam applied for Bhumidhari rights by depositing 20 times the land revenue. The very next day, on 26 November 1974, Pursottam sold these plots to Ajudhi @ Ayodhya. Pursottam’s application for Bhumidhari rights for plots 243 and 503 was rejected on 23 May 1975. However, on 5 January 1976, a Bhumidhari Sanad (certificate) was granted to Pursottam for plot 521. Unfortunately, Pursottam passed away on 4 December 1975, before the Sanad was issued.

Ajudhi @ Ayodhya then filed two suits in 1978: Suit No. 30 for declaration of Bhumidhari rights for plots 243 and 503, and Suit No. 31 for plot 521, based on the sale deed of 26 November 1974. The trial court dismissed both suits on 23 March 1979. On appeal, the Additional Commissioner allowed the suit for plot 521 but dismissed the suit for plots 243 and 503. Both parties then filed second appeals before the Board of Revenue, which were dismissed on 18 November 1983. Finally, the parties filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition of Ajudhi @ Ayodhya, decreeing Suit No. 30 of 1978, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Specifically, Section 134 of the Act, which deals with the acquisition of Bhumidhari rights by a Sirdar, states that a Sirdar can acquire Bhumidhari rights by depositing an amount equal to twenty times the land revenue. The relevant portion of Section 134(1) states:

“134. Acquisition of bhumidhari rights by a sirdar.– (1) If a sirdar , not being a sirdar, referred to in clause (b) of Section 131 deposits to the credit of the State Government an amount equal to twenty times the land revenue payable or deemed to be payable on the date of application for the land of which he is the sirdar, he shall, upon an application duly made in that behalf to an Assistant Collector, be entitled, with effect from the date on which the amount has been so deposited, to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137 in respect of such land…”

Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, outlines the grant of a certificate for Bhumidhari rights. It states that upon the grant of the certificate, the Sirdar becomes a Bhumidhar from the date of deposit. The relevant portion of Section 137 states:

“137. Grant of certificate.– (1) If the application has been duly made and the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the declaration mentioned in Section 134 he shall grant a certificate to that effect. (2) Upon the grant of the certificate under sub-section (1) the sirdar shall from the date on which the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 134 has been deposited: (a) become and the be deemed to be a bhumidhar of the holing or the share in respect of which the certificate has been granted, and (b) Be liable for payment of such reduced amount on account of land revenue for the holding or his share therein, as the case may be as shall one- half of the amount of Land revenue payable or deemed to be payable by him therefor on the date of application.”

Additionally, the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (U.P. Ordinance No.1 of 1977), and the subsequent U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977, which amended Sections 130 and 131 of the Act, play a crucial role. These amendments granted Bhumidhar rights to Sirdars and also included Section 73, which dealt with the abatement of pending proceedings for acquisition of Bhumidhari rights. Section 73(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, states:

“Section 73: Transitory provisions (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force all proceedings for acquisition of bhumidhari rights under sections 134 and 135 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as they stood immediately before January 28, 1977 and all proceedings arising therefrom, pending on such date before any court or authority shall abate.”

Section 73(2) of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 provides for the refund of the deposited amount in abated proceedings:

“(2) Where any proceeding has abated under sub-section (1) the amount deposited for the acquisition of such rights shall be refunded to the person depositing the same or to his legal representatives as the case may be.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that Pursottam had no right to execute the sale deed on 26 November 1974, as he was only a Sirdar tenant at the time.
• Since Pursottam died on 4 December 1975 before the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad for plots 243 and 503, the rights should accrue to his legal heirs, not the plaintiffs.
• The application for Bhumidhari Sanad for plots 243 and 503 was rejected on 23 May 1975, making the sale deed invalid for those plots.
• The appellant relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment in Ram Sabodh and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Faizabad and Others, 1982 All. L.J. 1252, to support their argument that the sale deed executed by Pursottam was invalid.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that Pursottam’s deposit of 20 times the land revenue on 25 November 1974, along with his application, should be treated as a grant of Bhumidhari rights from that date itself, based on Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
• For plots 243 and 503, even though the application was rejected, a revision was filed, which was pending when U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 1977 was enforced, granting Bhumidhari rights to Sirdars, which abated the revision.

The core of the dispute lies in whether the sale deed executed by Pursottam before the actual grant of Bhumidhari rights is valid, and what impact the subsequent land reforms had on this situation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the sale deed executed by Pursottam on 26 November 1974, was valid given that he was a Sirdar tenant at the time and had not yet been granted Bhumidhari rights.
2. Whether the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad for plot 521 after Pursottam’s death would relate back to the date of his application and validate the sale deed.
3. What is the effect of the rejection of Pursottam’s application for Bhumidhari rights for plots 243 and 503 on the validity of the sale deed?
4. What is the impact of the U.P. Ordinance No.1 of 1977 and the subsequent U.P. Act No.8 of 1977 on the pending applications for Bhumidhari rights and the sale deed executed by Pursottam?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key authorities to reach its decision:

Cases:

• Ram Pyare Vs. Ram Narain and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 162 – Supreme Court of India
  • This case dealt with the applicability of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act in a similar situation where a Sirdar sold land on the same day he applied for Bhumidhari rights. The court held that Section 43 applies, and the tenure holder acquired Bhumidhari rights, validating the sale.
  • Ratio: Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to cases where a person erroneously represents they have the authority to transfer property, and this representation is acted upon by the transferee.
• Deo Nandan and Another Vs. Ram Saran and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 440 – Supreme Court of India
  • This case addressed a situation where a Sirdar died before the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad. The court held that the declaration of Bhumidhari rights must take effect from the date of deposit, and the certificate has a retrospective effect.
  • Ratio: The declaration of Bhumidhari rights takes effect from the date of deposit, and the certificate has a retrospective effect, even if issued after the death of the applicant.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
  • This section provides for the acquisition of Bhumidhari rights by a Sirdar upon depositing twenty times the land revenue.
  • Brief: This provision allows a Sirdar to apply for and acquire Bhumidhari rights by paying a specified amount.
• Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
  • This section outlines the grant of a certificate for Bhumidhari rights, stating that upon the grant of the certificate, the Sirdar becomes a Bhumidhar from the date of deposit.
  • Brief: This provision states that upon the grant of the certificate, the Sirdar becomes a Bhumidhar from the date of deposit.
• Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977
  • This section deals with transitory provisions, stating that all pending proceedings for the acquisition of Bhumidhari rights shall abate, and the deposited amount shall be refunded.
  • Brief: This provision abated all pending proceedings for Bhumidhari rights and provided for a refund of the deposited amount, effectively terminating those claims.

Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Ram Pyare Vs. Ram Narain and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 162, which held that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable in cases where a person erroneously represents they have the authority to transfer property.
• The Court also relied on Deo Nandan and Another Vs. Ram Saran and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 440, which held that the declaration of Bhumidhari rights takes effect from the date of deposit, and the certificate has a retrospective effect.
• The Court interpreted Section 134 and Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, to mean that while the deposit of land revenue gives the Sirdar a right to acquire Bhumidhari rights, the actual grant of the certificate is necessary for the rights to be fully vested.
• The Court interpreted Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, to mean that all pending applications for Bhumidhari rights were abated, and the benefit of the Act could not be given to Pursottam retrospectively for plots 243 and 503.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal principles and factual considerations. The Court aimed to balance the retrospective effect of Bhumidhari rights with the statutory provisions that abated pending claims. The court emphasized the importance of the actual grant of the Bhumidhari certificate for the transfer of rights, while also recognizing the retrospective effect of such grants.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretations (60%) but also took into account the specific facts of the case (40%). The emphasis was on the statutory provisions and the retrospective effect of the Bhumidhari Sanad, balanced with the abatement of pending claims.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the deposit of land revenue should automatically confer Bhumidhari rights from the date of deposit. However, this was rejected because the court emphasized the necessity of the actual grant of the certificate under Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for the rights to be fully vested.

The Court also considered that Pursottam’s revision application was pending when the 1977 Act was enforced. However, it was held that Section 73 of the 1977 Act specifically abated all pending proceedings, thus terminating Pursottam’s claim and making the sale deed invalid for plots 243 and 503.

The Court’s final decision was that the sale deed for Plot 521 was valid due to the retrospective effect of the Bhumidhari Sanad, but the sale deed for plots 243 and 503 was invalid due to the rejection of the application and the abatement of pending proceedings.

The key reasons for the decision are:

• The retrospective effect of the Bhumidhari Sanad for Plot 521, as per Deo Nandan and Another Vs. Ram Saran and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 440.
• The abatement of all pending proceedings under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, which terminated Pursottam’s claim for plots 243 and 503.
• The emphasis on the actual grant of the certificate under Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for the transfer of rights.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“When a certificate is issued under Section 137, it in fact recognises the position as on the date when the application was made and the payment contemplated under Section 134(1) was deposited. The certificate, in other words, will have a retrospective effect and would relate back to the date of the application.”

“By statutory provision, i.e. Section 73, all pending applications and proceedings were abated and grant of Bhumidhari rights was contemplated under Sections 130 and 131, which was sought to be inserted by U.P. Ordinance No.1 of 1977.”

“The consequence of the said provision is that the revision, which was filed by Pursottam stood abated and the amount so deposited was to be refunded to his legal representative. The claim of Pursottam to get Bhumidari rights on the basis of his application dated 25.11.1974 with regard to Plot Nos. 243 and 503, thus, stood terminated by virtue of provisions of Section 73.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The two-judge bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• A sale deed executed by a Sirdar tenant before the grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad is not automatically valid. The actual grant of the Sanad is crucial for the transfer of rights.
• The Bhumidhari Sanad has a retrospective effect, relating back to the date of the application and deposit of land revenue, as per Deo Nandan and Another Vs. Ram Saran and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 440.
• The Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, abated all pending applications for Bhumidhari rights, and the benefit of the Act cannot be availed retrospectively for plots where the application was rejected and the revision was abated.
• Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act can be applied in cases where a person erroneously represents that they have the authority to transfer property, as per Ram Pyare Vs. Ram Narain and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 162.
• It is essential to ensure that all necessary legal procedures are completed before executing a sale deed for land, especially when dealing with land under tenancy.
• The courts will emphasize the actual grant of a certificate under Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for the transfer of rights.
• Land reform laws can have a significant impact on property transfers, and it is important to understand the implications of such laws on pending applications and existing sale deeds.