Holding

Notification No. 71 has the force of law but benefits only dispossessed landholders, and Section 17 of the 1954 Act validates the earlier recovery of tractorisation charges, so the appellant is not entitled to relief.

Summary

The appellant, a joint Khata holder of land declared as kans‑infested, was ordered to pay tractorisation charges under the 1949 Ordinance and the 1954 Act and his land was declared Taluqdeh and evicted. He sought relief on two grounds: (i) that Notification/Proclamation No. 71 of 1941, issued by the Government, should be treated as law and give him a preferential right of re‑allotment, and (ii) that the recovery of tractorisation charges, held ultra vires in State of Bhopal v. Champalal, should be set aside and his land restored. The Supreme Court held that the 1933 amendment to the General Clauses Act gave Notification No. 71 the force of law, but its benefit was limited to landholders who had actually been dispossessed, which the appellant was not. Moreover, Section 17 of the 1954 Act validates all actions taken before its commencement, including the recovery of tractorisation charges, so the appellant could not rely on Champalal’s decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Notification/Proclamation No. 71 dated 25 Feb 1941, though issued by the Government and not by the Ruler, has the force of law under the amended General Clauses Act, 1931.
Whether a joint Khata holder who was never physically dispossessed is entitled to the preferential right of re‑allotment under Notification No. 71.
Whether the recovery of tractorisation charges under the 1949 Ordinance and the 1954 Act, declared ultra vires in Champalal’s case, can be set aside to restore the appellant’s land in view of Section 17 of the 1954 Act.
Whether the High Court should have remanded the case for consideration of other points raised by the appellant.

Subjects

tractorisation chargesland reclamationKans weed eradicationpreferential re‑allotmentjoint KhataGeneral Clauses ActSection 17ultra viresBhopalland revenueTaluqdehunoccupied land

Judgment

A AZIZUDDIN
v.
BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 12, 1999

B [D.P. WADHWA AND AP. MISRA, )J.]

Tenancy and Land Laws :

Bhopal State Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of
C Kans) Ac~ 1954:

Section 17-Validity of-Tractorization charges (for eradication of the
weed kans )-Non-payment of-Attachment of land due to-Recovery of trac-
torization charges against the landowner under the 1949 Ordinance were
concluded through proceedings under the 1932 Act and land declared as
D Taluqdeh (unoccupied land) before the coming into force of the 1954
Act-Held, the landowner cannot derive any benefit from the Supreme Cowt's
judgment in Champalal's case which declared Tractorization charges as ultra
vires-This is more so as S. 17 of the 1954 Act declaring all actions taken
before the coming into force of the 1954 Act is not held ultra vires or
E invalid-Bhopal State Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication
of Kans) Ordinance, 1949-Bhopal Land Revenue Ac~ 1932.

General Principles-Relief-Grant of-To joint Khata holders-Held,
all joint Khata holder must apply for relief-Hence, one individual Khata
F holder not entitled to relief.

General Clauses Act (Bhopal), 1931 : Section 2(12) (as amended in
1933 r/w Government Notification No. 71 dated 25.2.1941).

Land-Re-allotment-Preferential right of-Dispossessed land-
G owner-Notification No. 71-Held, notification issued by Government and
not by Ruler himself has the force of law under amended S. 2( 12)7However,
Notification No. 71 is applicable only to dispossessed landowners-Hence, a
landowner who is never physically dispossessed not entitled to claim
preferential right of re-allotment-High Court rightly dismissed landowner's
H claim of preferential right of re-allotment though for different reasons.
618
AZIZUDDIN v. BOARD OF REVENUE [MISRA, J.] 619

~ Practice and Procedure. A

Remand-High Court had not gone into some points though
raisetJ-£ffect of-Held, nonnally case ought to be remanded for considera-
tion of those points-However, where the case has been pending for a
longtime and all findings were on record, and parties are agreeable, those
points can be disposed of by Supreme Court itself. B
~.

+ The appellant possessed a joint Khata in respect of land and held
the said land jointly along with four others. The land belonging to the
appellant was declared as kans invested by a Government Notification
issued under the Bhopal State Reclamation and Department of Lands
(Eradication of Kans) Ordinance, 1949 which was replaced by the Bhopal
c
State Reclamation and Development of Land (Eradication of Kans) Act,
1954. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice to the appellant demand-
ing tractorization charges (for eradication of the weed kans). The
appellant's land in joint Khata was declared Taluqdeh (Unoccupied) and
eviction order was passed against the appellant due to non-payment of the D
_;, aforesaid tractorization charges.

However, the Chief Commissioner declared the recovery of trac-
torization charges as ultra vires. The State Government filed an appeal
before this Court against the aforesaid judgment. Thereafter, the appellant
E
filed an application before the Tehsildar that no action should be taken
against him till this Court settl~d the validity of the tractorization charges.
Alternatively, the appellant claimed under a Government Notifica-
tion/Proclamation No. 71 dated 25.2.1941 issued under the Bhopal Land
Revenue Act, 1932 for a preferential right for re-allotment of his land,
which was declared Taluqdeh. F

The Additional Commissioner held that the aforesaid Notifica-
tion/Proclamation No. 71 was only an executive under declaring the inten-
ti on of the Ruler of the erstwhile Princely State of Bhopal to give preference
to the dispossessed holders of land and did .not hayii the force of law. It

- was further held that since the appellant was never physically dispossessed
G
he was not entitled for the relief even in terms of the said proclamation.
-t·
In the meanwhile, this Court in Champalal's CQSe 'held the recovery
of tractorization charges both under the 1949 Ordinance and the 1954 Act
to be ultra vires. However, Section 17 of the Act declaring all actions taken H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A before the coming into force of the 1954 Act as lawful and valid was not
found to be ultra vires or invalid.

Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the aforesaid order of the Additional commissioner and also
seeking relief in view of the judgment of this Court in Champalal's case to
B restore the land to the appellant. The High Court dismissed the writ
petition on the ground that the Rules framed under the ~hopal Land
Revenue Act, 1932 did not give any preference and that the Notiflca·
tion/Proclamation No. 71 was merely an executive instruction which could
not be given effect to as it was not issued by the Ruler.
c On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the High Court
failed to take into consideration Champalal's case and also the 1933
amendment in the General Clauses Act (Bhopal), 1931 by which Section
2(12) was amended, as the appellant specifically took all the grounds in
the writ petition.
D
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. By virtue of the 1933 amendment to Section 2(12) of the
General Clauses (Bhopal) Act, 1931 the Notification/Proclamation No. 71
E dated 25.2.1941 even if issued by the Government and not by the Rules
himself of the erstwhile State of Bhopal is declared to have the force of
law. (628-G]

1.2. However, benefit under Notification No. 71 was given only to
such holders of land who were dispossessed from their holdings. Since the
F appellant, admittedly, was never physically dispossessed from his holding
be would not qualify for preferential right of re-allotment of bis land even
in terms of the said Notification. Therefore, the High Court was right in
dismissing the appellant's claim for preferential re-allotment of his land
though for different reasons. (629-D)

G 2. Admittedly, the recovery of tractorization charges including the
penalty etc. under the Bhopal State Reclamation and Development of
Lands (Eradication of Kans) Ordinance, 1949 including the declaration of
disputed land to be Taluqdeh (unoccupied), concluded through proceeding
under the Bhopal .Land Revenue Act, 1932 before the coming into force of
H the Bhopal State Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of
}-
,

AZIZUDDIN v. BOARD OF REVENUE [MISRA, J.] 621

Kans) Act, 1954. Thus, by virtue of Section 17 of the 1954 Act all actions A
taken or act done before the coming into force of the 1954 Act on account
or eradication of kans stood declared as lawful and confirmed and is
deemed valid as if they have been done in accordance with law. It is
significant that Section 17 of the 1954 Act was not held to be ultra vires or
invalid in Champalal's case. Therefore, the appellant cannot derive any
benefit from Champalal's case. [628-C·D]
B

~)..
State of Bhopal v. Champa/al, [1964] 6 SCR 35, held inapplicable.

3.1. Normally, when the High Court has not gone into other points
though raised, to which this Court is satisfied, this Court would have
remanded the case back for the consideration of those other points. As the
c
life of this case has already taken long number of years, it is appropriate
in the interest of the parties, to which the parties agreed, to dispose of
these other points by this Court itself as all relevant findings and the
records are before this Court which this Court has considered. [629-F]
D
3.2. The authorities rightly did not grant the preferential right for
J,
re-allotment or the appellant's land pertaining to the joint Khata as none
of the other shareholders applied for such preferential right. [629-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4231 of
1982. E

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.78 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 658 of 1971.
~

Ms. Sobha Dikshit, Pradeep Misra for the Appellant.
F
"" S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MISRA, J. The frr~t question raised for our consideration is, whether
erstwhile land holders holding the land in joint Khata under the then Ruler G
'· of Bhopal would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 71 dated
. l·
, 25th Feb., 1941 under which the land owners who were dispossessed from
their land could claim preferential right of reallotment of their land, and
whether the said Notification is only an executive order issued by the Govt.
of Bhopal, as it is signed by the Assistant Revenue Secretary, Govt. of H
622 SUPREME COURT REF ORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.

A Bhopal, having no force of law or was it issued by the Ruler himself which
would undisputably have the force of law and in that case, whether the
appellant is entitled to be conferred the benefit under it?

The second question raised is, if the appellant lost right in his holding
B on account of non-payment of the tractorization charges which was due
under the Bhopal State Reclamation a'ld Development of Lands (Eradica-
tion of Kans) Ordinance, 1949 (No. XXXVIII of 1949) and the Bhopal
Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of Kans) Act, 1954
(Act No. XIII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance' and 'the
1954 Act' respectively), and since the provisions for charging the tractoriza-
C tion charges both under the Ordinance and the 1954 Act having been held
to be ultra vires, consequently, notices under it also declared illegal in the
cease of State of Bhopal and Ors. v. Champa/al and Ors., [1964] 6 SCR P.35,
then, whether the appellant would not be entitled to get back his lost
disputed land?
D
In order to appreciate the controversy and to adjudicate the point in
issue, it is necessary to give some of the essential facts of this case.

The appellant, Azizuddin, owned 128.41 acres of land under his
E individual Khata, in his own name, situated in village Khari even prior to
1363 F. He also possessed a joint Khata in the same village and village
Rasulia Bazyaft measuring 376.501 acres and 201.83 acres, respectively, in
his own name and in the name of four others namely, Ahmad Khan,
Mohamadi Begum, Ahamadi Begum, Alia Bee. The said persons were legal
F heirs of one Amir Khan. The appellant had purchased the share of the fifth
son of Amir Khan viz. Abdul Mateen. The dispute relates only in respect
of land of this joint holding and not in respect of his 128.41 acres of land
which he holds in his individual Khata. After the death of Amir Khan in
1948, the appellant purchased the said 1/5th share belonging to Abdul
Mateen which comes to approx. 167.68 acres in the said joint holding and
G thus became a co-owner with the aforesaid persons in the said joint Khata.
The appellant name was duly mutated in the revenue records. On 1st June.,
1949, Union of India took over the administration of Bhopal-Princely State ·1.
for five years and a Chief Commissioner was appointed. Then an Or-
dinance No. XXXVIII of 1949 as aforesaid, was promulgated by the then
H Chief Commissioner. On 18th January, 1951 a notification was issued under
AZIZUDDINv. BOARDOFREVENUE[MISRA,J.] 623
+
,, it declaring all the villages in the same Tahsil as Kans infested. In this the A
land of the appellant was also included. The authority then issued notice
to Abdul Mateen and others through the Reclamation Officer, Land
Reclamation Board, Bhopal, in respect of the land in question to ascertain
the capacity of each land holder to cultivat~ their lands by desiring them
to produce number of pairs of bullocks w ·~- red for ploughing the area on B
a fixed date. The ratio fixed was one pair of bullock for every 15 acres of
-~
land. To this notice Abdul Matee!J informed that he had already trans-
ferred his share in the land to Azizuddin-appellant, hence notice be sent
to him. On 22nd Oct. 1952, a loan of Rs 1500 was sanctioned as taccavi for
purchase of seeds under the G.M.F. Scheme to Abdul Mateen which was
duly paid to the appellant recognising him to be the occupant of the land.
c
Thereafter notices were issued on 4th/14th June, 1953, to the appellant and
other joint owners with respect to the said joint Khata and to the appellant
alone for his individual Khata demanding the tracrtorization charges at the
rate of Rs. 10/- per acre to be paid by 15th June, 1953. The case of the
appellant is that the said the tractorization charges were illegal and hence D
).
the same was not payable. Some of the agriculturists had already cha!-
lenged the validity of the aforesaid Ordinance, including Abdul Mateen,
befor_e the Judicial Commissioner, Bhopal. However, on the other hand,
on account of non-payment of the said dues both the land of his individual
Khata and joint Khata were auctioned to recover the tractorization charges, E
land revenue and penalty under the Bhopal Land Revenue Act, 1932 (the
1932 Act). Auctions were held 22 times but it failed as no bidders came
forward. Thereafter on 21st January, 1954, Tehsildar passed an order under
Section 137(C) of the 1932 Act that in case the Khatedars failed to pay the
said Goverment dues they shall be evicted. On 22nd May, 1954, Tehsildar
,.. F
passed an order of injunction and attachment restraining the land holders
_..
from making any sale, gift or transfer of the land in question. Thereafter,
orders for eviction from land was passed and the said land was declared
Taluqdeh (Unoccupied).

,.,_ However. in the other proceedings, by some other agriculturists, on G
9th April, 1956, Chief Commissioner, Bhopal, struck down some of the
-1:. provisions of the said Ordinance and the 1954 Act holding it to be ultra
vires. Thereafter, on 1st Oct., 1959, pursuant to the reorganisation of the
States, the State of Madhya Pradesh came into existence which issued
similar Ordinances Nos. 7 of 1956 and 8 of 1957 authorising recovery of H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. ,...
A the tractorization charges. Meanwhile, in view of the aforesaid judgment
of the Chief Commissioner the recovery of the tractorization charges were '
stopped but the State Government filed an appeal before this Court under
Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the
appeal though the State Govt. is said to have stayed further recovery of the
tractorization charges but still State started taking further coercive
B
measures as against the appellant of taking delivery of possession of his _,,
land because so far appellant is concerned, the recovery of the said charges
already concluded and even a declaration of his land as Taluqdeh was
made earlier. Hence the appellant moved an application before the Teh-
sildar Praying that till the question of validity of the tractorization charges
c are not settled by the Supreme Court, on action be taken. In the alternative,
he claim~d right under the aforesaid Notification/proclamation No. 71
dated 25th Feb., 1941 issued by the Govt.of Bhopal, as aforesaid, for a
preferential right for reallotinent of his land which was declared Taluqdeh
and for which he offered to pay full amount of any dues to the extent of
D his share in the said joint holding. The Tehsildar on 12th Aug., 1959,
.\
recommended for the rejection of this application of the appellant as
benefit under the said proclamation No. 71 could not be given in the
changed circumstances, ·as there now exists superseding rules relating to
unoccupied land. The Deputy Collector accepted the said report, hence
E rejected the said application. The appellant preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner who dismissed the same on the ground that he is a rank
defaulter and deserves no leniency and since circumstances have also
changed no further benefit could be given. A second appeal was preferred
which was allowed resulting into quashing of the aforesaid two orders and
remanded the case back to examine the nature of the said proclamation,
F whether it has any force of law on the relevant date? Consequently,
Tehsildar examined and filed a report that it had a legal force and was in
force at the relevant time. On 14th March, 1966, the S.D.O. accepted the
said report and concluded the said proclamation had legal force and was
in force at the relevant time thus the appellant was granted relief in respect
G of his individual Khata for the said area of 128.41 acres which was in his
name but his claim in respect of the joint Khatas was rejected for the
reason that this claim could not be considered in the absence of any such
request through an application by all the joint holders which was admit-
·t[
tedly not made. The Additional Collector upheld this order. The second
H appeal by the appellant before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal was
AZIZUDDIN v. BOARD OF REVENUE [MISRA, J.] 625
also rejected by further holding that the said proclamation No.71 was not A
• under any provisions of law and it stood superseded by Notification No. 41
dated 2nd January, 1951. Further, the said proclamation/notification No.71
was only an executive order declaring the intention of the Ruler to give
preference to the dispossessed holders. It was further recorded that since
the appellant was never dispossessed and continued in possession without
B
paying a single penny, hence not entitled for the relief even in terms of the
said proclamation. The appellant preferred a revision before the Board
'll_ which was also rejected. Review was also preferred on the ground that
Notification No. 71 of 1941 was wrongly translated. According to the
appellant the said notification if properly translated would only mean that
it is issued by the Ruler and is not an executive order of the Govt. of c
Bhopal. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court
in addition also seeing relief in view of the judgment of this Court in
Champa/al (supra) to restore the land to the appellant. The said writ
petition was rejected on the ground that rules framed under Bhopal Land
Revenue Act, 1932, does not give any preference, and the aforesaid D
Notification No. 71 is merely an executive instruction which cannot be given
I: effect as it was not issued by the Ruler. The High Court further recorded
that this was the only point argued before the Board and this is the only
point which can be considered in this petition.

Challenging this order, the contention of learned senior Counsel Mrs. E
Shobha Dixit for the appellant is that the High Court failed to take into
consideration the case of Champa Lal (supra) and also the amendment in
1933 in the General Clauses Act, 1931 by Bhopal Legislature by which
Section 2(12) was amended, as the appellant did specifically took all these
grounds in the writ petition. F
_,.,
We proceed now to scrutinise out of the two questions raised, the
second question first, whether the appellant would be entitled or not, to
get back his land when the tractorization charges were declared to be
illegal by this Court, for the recovery of which he lost his land. The G
tractorization charges were levied under Section 4 read with Section 7 of
the 1954 Act. The Preamble of the Act spells out:
t
"to provide for the reclamation and development of lands by
eradication of kans weed in certain areas of the State of Bhopal." H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A Kans is a kind of noxious weed. Under Section 4 Government was
empowered, if it is of the opinion, that any area is infested with kans, to
declare such area by notification to be a kans area. After said declaration, •
a Reclamation Officer may enter upon any such land and take possession
for such period as may be necessary for the purpose of eradication of kans
from such area. Section 6 gives power to survey and carry on eradicating
B operation. Under sub-section (1) after issuance of notification under Sec-
tion 4, the Reclamation Officer notwithstanding the provisions of the
Bhopal Land Revenue Act 1932, under sub-clause (b) take possession of
the whole or any part of the kans area and carry on eradicating and other
anciallary and subsidiary operations therein. Section 7 casts a liability on
C the owner of such land to pay the cost of such eradicating operations,
namely removal of such kans from his land. Charges recoverable for this is
known as the tractorization charges. The recovery for this is made as land
revenue under Section 8. Section 4 was declared in the Champa Lal (supra)
to be violative of Article 19(1)(1) of the Constitution. It held:
D
"The Act contains no provision for the person interested having
an opportunity to establish that the particular land in which he was '-
interested was not kans infested and therefore did not stand in
need of any eradication operation. Section 4(1) read in conjunction
E with the power contained in section 4(4) coupled with the absence
of any provision for entertaining objections would, in the cir-
cumstances of there being admittedly patches of land in the same
tehsil which had been cleared at least in 1941 must be characterised
as arbitrary and imposing an unreasonable restriction on the right
to hold and enjoy property within Art. 19 (l)(f) of the Constitu-
F tion."

The Court further held that since the possession taken by the
Reclamation Officer being exclusive, it may be for a short period, but it
would amount to taking possession within the meaning of Article 31 (2)
G hence Section 4(1) read with Section 6(1)(h) is unconstituional being
violative of Article 31(2). Section 7 places liability on the owner of such
land for payment of the expenditure incurred by the govt. on such eradica-
tion of Kans. The cost is to be equitably apportioned by the Reclamation
Board between the several holders of, or persons having interest in the
H lanc!s comprised in the kans area. The said Champa Lal (supra) held:
AZIZUDDIN v. BOARD OF REVENUE [MISRA, J.] 627

".. .It is common ground that the Reclamation Board never met and A
-t consequently neither computed the total expenditure incurred or
·, to be incurred for the eradication operations, nor did it make the
allocation among the holders of the lands on which eradication
operations were conducted... The learned Judicial Commissioner
held that the terms of Section 7 were madatory and that unless the
mind of the Reclamation Board was brought to bear on the
B
question, and the Board computed the total expenditure as well
as the proper allocation of this sum among the several land-owners
no lawful demand could be made under section 8, nor could the
same be recovered from the respondents. We find ourselves in
entire agreement with the learned Judicial Commissioner in hold- c
ing (1) that the procedure prescribed by Section 7 is mandatory
and (2) that as admittedly there was no copipliance with it no lawful
demand could be made for the contribution payable by any
landholder by the Central Govenment or by the State Goverment
at the instance of the Central Government without recourse to the
D
machinery provided by Section 7. The notices of demand were,
therefore, properly quashed as illegal."
/;

So not only the aforesaid sections were held to be ultra vires but even notice
of demand was also held to be illegal. It is not in dispute that the appellant
was not party in this writ petition. E

, It is very unfortunate that in spite of such declaration, no relief could
\ be granted to the appellant. Admittedly the appellant's land was proceeded
for recovery and was declared as Taluqdeh before coming into force of the
1954 Act. The recovery was made in pursuance of the aforesaid Ordinance F
and its recovery coucluded through proceeding under the Bhopal Land
·~ Revenue Act. 1932. It is significant that Section 17 of the 1954 Act was not
held to be ultra vires or invalid, which read as:

"all acts done, any notification issued, appointment, authorisation
or enquiry made, duty assigned, notice served, or any action taken G
with respect to or on account of eradication of kans, during the
period commencing on the 20th Oct. 1949, and ending with the
t· date of commencement of this Act, by the Goverment or by any
Officer of the Govt. or by any other authority under the Bhopal
State Reclamation and Development of Lands (Eradication of H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A Kam.), Ordinance, 1949 .... are hereby declared lawful and con-
firmed, and shall be as valid and operative as if they had been
done:, issued, made, assigned, served or taken in accordance with
law. No suit or other legal proceedings shall be maintained or
continued against the Government or any person whatsoever on
the ground that any such acts or proceedings were not done or
B taken in accordance with law."

It is admitted between the parties that this recovery for the trac- · ,If'
torization charges including the penatly etc. under the aforesaid 1949
Ordinance, including the declaration of the disputed land to be Taluqdeh,
C concluded before coming into force of the 1954 Act. Thus, by virtue of
Section 17 all actions taken or act done on account of eradication of kans
stood declared as lawful and confirmed and is deemed valid as if they have
been done in acco{dance with law. Hence, apart from the reason recorded
by the High Court, so far this issue is concerned, the appellant cannot
D succeed.

Returning to the first question, the bone of contention for the appel- '.'>
lant is that the High Court committed an error by holding with reference
to the Proclamation/Notification No. 71 dated 24th February, 1941, that it
E is an execultive order issued by the Government and not an order by the
Ruler, hence it has no force of law, and at the relevant time there existed
Section 51 under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 which specifi-
cally d.!alt with the disposal of unoccupied land.

It is not necessary for us, for the reasons we are recording hereunder,
F to go into the question, whether it was issued by the Ruler himself? We
find there was amendment in the year 1933 in the General Clauses Act,
1931 by the Bhopal Legislature whereby Section 2 (12) was amended. By
virtue of this amendment the said Proclamation I Notification even if issued
by the GO\ t. is declared to have the force of law. It seems this fact was not
G brought to the notice of the High Court. Thus, Notification No. 71 dated
24th Feb. 1941, would have the force of law. This takes us to the next
question if this has a force of law, whether still the appellant would be
entitled for any relief under it? Learned counsel for the appellant while · .tJ
challenging the High Court finding that since there existed Section 51 in \
H the aforesaid 1932 Act dealing with the unoccupied land, hence the appel-
., AZIZUDDIN v. BOARD OF REVENUE [MISRA, J.]

lant case would only be governed under it and not under the Notification
629

::::;> A
No. 71, he further submitted this to be erroneous and illegal as the said
land was never unoccupied in spite of the declaration it to be Taluqdeh,
as the appellant continued in possession over the said land and was never
dispossessed. Thus Section 51 of the 1932 Act would not apply.
B
We feel in either case the appellant cannot succeed. In case, after
the declaration of the said land as Taluqdeh (meaning declared as unoc-
cupied by eviction) if the appellant continued in possession and the land
was never unoccupied then it may be true that Section 51 of the 1932 Act
would not apply but then for the same reason the appellant cannot take
=="
advantage of the Proclamation/Notification No. 71 also. Benefit under it
c
was only given to such holders of land who were dispossessed from their
land holding. If the appellant was never dispossessed and continued to
enjoy the land, the essential ingredient of that Notification that such holder
must have been dispossessed, would be lacking. Thus, unless the appellant
was dispossessed from his holding question of preferential right for real- D
·"" lottment would never arise. When the appellant's case even before us is
that he was never dispossessed from his holding and continued in posses-
sion, in our considered opinion, he would not qualify for such preferential
right even in terms of the said notification.
E
Normally, when the High Court has not gone into other points,
though raised to which we satisfied ourself, we would have remanded the
case back for the ·consideration of those other points. As the life of this
case has alrady taken long number .of years, we felt it appropriate in the
-<. interest of the parties, to 'which parties agreed, to dispose of these other F
points by this Court itself as all relevant findings and the records are before
this Court which we have· considered. Lastly, we further find, from the
perusal of the various orders passed by the Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional
Officer, Additional Collector, Board of Revenue, etc. that these authorities
further did not grant this relief to the appellant for another reason to which G
~- we fmd merit as the dispute pertain to the joint kl1ata in which the
appellant had only 1/5th share and as none of the other share holders
applied for such preferential right which is also not in dispute. That is why
so far as the individual holding of the appellant for which he applied, he
.J has succeeded for which there is no dispute. H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.RJ
A Hence we do not find any merit in any of the grounds raised by the
appellant for the reasons recorded above. Accordingly, the claim of the
appellant fails thougli on different grounds than what was held by the High
Court. The appeal is dismissed. Costs on the parties.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed~
B