DEO NANDAN AND ANR.versusRAM SARAN AND ORS.

                        DEO NANDAN AND ANR.                                      A
                                 v.
                         RAM SARAN AND ORS.

                              MARCH 9, 2000

              [B.N. KIRPAL AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]                            B

      Land Laws:

      U.P. 'Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950-Sections 134
and 137-Sirdar of Land applied for bhumidari certificr;ite and execured sale
deed on same day-Bhumidari certificate granted after death of applicant-
                                                                                 c
Widow re-sold the land-Trial Court held first sale deed invalid-Lower
Appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that certificate would relate back
to date of application-High Court reversed the order and held first sale deed
invalid-On appeal, Held, rights stand acquired when revenue contemplated
under the Section is deposited-Issue of certificate immaterial as declaration    D
takes effect from date of deposit of revenue since doctrine of relation back
incorporated in Amendment Act 21 of 1962.

       The sirdar of the land in question applied to be declared a bhumidar
under Section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
1950. A sale deed was executed on the same day after making the applica-         E
tion. He died before the grant of bhumidari certificate under Section 137 of
the Act. His widow sold the land to the respondent before the bhumidari
certificate was issued with effect from the date of application.

       Trial court declared the first sale deed invalid as the seller had not
                                                                                 F
been declared bhumidar at that time. The lower appellate court held the
first sale deed valid as the certificate granted would relate back to the date
of application. High Court in second appeal held the first sale deed to be
invalid as no right had been acquired by the seller on the date of applica-
tion. Hence this appeal.
                                                                                 G
      Allowing the appeal, this Court

     HELD : 1. Section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act clearly specifies the date with effect from which the rights
would stand acquired, which is when the amount contemplated by it is
deposited. This clearly obviates the uncertainty of the point of time when       H
                                     209
     210                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A    the title is transferred by fixing the date as being the one when the amooot
     is deposited. It would be immaterial as to when the declaration under
     Section 137 ·is made because that declaration must necessarily take effect
     from the date when the amount is de~ted. [213-F-H]

          2. Before amendment in 1962, Section 137(2) of the Act provided
B   that it is only upon the grant of certificate under Section 137(1)·that the
    sirdar shall from the date thereof become or be deemed to be a bhilmidar
    of the holding or the share ilr respect of which tire certificate has been
    granted. The amendment of Section 137(2) by the Amendmen~ Act 21 of
    1962 brought it in line with Section 134. The two provisions read together
C clearly provide that as and when the certificate under Section 137 is
    granted, it must relate back and be effective from the date on which the
  · amount referred to in Section 134(1) has been deposited. (214-A-C]

          Banshidhar v. Smt. Dhirajadlwri. and Ors., (1971) AU. L.J. 937; Mobin
     Khan v. Chunnu Khan tmd Ors., (1981) AU. L.J. 402 and Raglumandan Singh
D    and Another v. Vashwant Singh, (-1978) Revenue Decisions 183, overruled.

            3. When a certificate is issued under Section 137 of the Act, 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 cer-
     tificate will have a retrospective effect and would relate back to the date
E    of the application. There was nothing ~o prevent the revenue authorities
     from allowing the applicati9n filed under Section 134(1) on the day when
     it was presented. The underlying intention of the legislature is"that as and
     when the said application is accepted and order is passed under Section
     137, it must relate back to the date when the application was filed. The
     doctrine of relation back has been incorporated in Sections 134 and 137 of
F    the Act. [214-E-H]

             Cl\lll., APPELLAIB JURISDICTION           Civil Appeal No. 4966 of
     1984.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.82 of the Allahabad High
G    Court S.A. No. 2473 of 1970.

             Prem Prasad Juneja, S.P. Juneja and P.S. Jha for the Appellants.

             T.N. Singh and B.M. Sharma for the Respondents.

H            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                 DEO NANDAN v. RAM SARAN [KIRPAL, J.]                       211
      KIRPAL J. The question involved in this case pertains to the                  A
interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Refonns Act as the said provisions existed in 1964-1965.

      Briefly stated the facts are that one Bechan was a sirdar of agricultural
land which consisted of six plots. On 25th August, 1964, he filed an
application under Section 134 of the said Act before the revenue authorities        B
and paid an amount equal to 10 times the land revenue and prayed that he
should be declared a bhumidar. It is an admitted case of the parties that it
is only on such declaration taking effect that he could sell the said land.

      After the said application had been filed and the land revenue
deposited, Bechan executed a sale deed on 25th August, 1964 selling the said        C
land to the plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein. Before any order could
be passed granting the bhumidari certificate, Bechan died on 15th September,
1964. The problem for the plaintiffs arose when on 5th January, 1965 the
widow of Bechan sold that very land to the defendants, who are the
respondents in this appeal. On 9th February, 1965, the sanad was issued
undei: section 137 in the name of Bechan with effect from 25th August, 1964,        D
the date when the said land revenue had been paid along with the application
for grant of bhumidari certificate.

       The appellants/plaintiffs then filed a suit in the trial court challenging
the validity of the sale deed dated 5th January, 1965 in favour of the
respondents/defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit having come to the       E
conclusion that the appellants herein had not derived any valid title to the
property in question because on the date when the sale deed was executed
on 25th August,-1964 Bechan had not been declared as a bhumidar under
Section 137. In appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the
trial court and decreed the suit. In arriving at this conclusion, the lower
appellate court was of the opinion that the certificate which was granted           p
under Section 137 would relate back to the date of the application and,
therefore, the appellants herein had acquired the title on 25th August, 1964
and, consequently, the sale deed of that very land on 5th January, 1965
executed by the widow of Bechan was not valid.

      The High Court, in a second appeal being filed, reversed the decision         G
of the lower appellate court and held that on 25th August, 1964 Bechan had
not acquired any right, title or interest which he could transfer because the
order on his application for grant of the bhumidari certificate had been passed
only on 9th February, 1965. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court
relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court reported as
Banshidhar V. Smt. Dhirajadhari and Others, (1971) AJJ.L.J. 937 and also            H
    212                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A   a Single Judge decision reported as Mabin Khan v. Chunnu Khan and Others,
    (1981) All.L.J. 402. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

           As we have ah-eady indicated, the decision in this appeal depends upon
    the interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
    and Land Reforms Act. These Sections read as follows :
B
                 "S. 134. Acquisition of bhumidhari rights by a sirdar. (1) If a
            sirdar belonging to the class mentioned in clause (a) of Sec. 131 pays
            or offers to pay to the credit of the State Government an amount
            equal to ten times the land revenue payable or deemed to be payable
            on the date of application for the land for which he is the sirdar, he
c           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 deposited, to a declaration that he has acquired the rights
            mentioned in Sec. 137 in respect of such land.

                Provided that the rights to pay or offer to pay the amount
D           aforementioned shall cease on the expiry of three months from the
            date to be notified by the State Government.

                 Explanalion I - Jn this su'!J-section 'land' includes shares in land.

                Explanation II - For the purpose of this section the land revenue
            payable shall -
E
                  (a) in respect of land referred to in the proviso to clause (a)
                  of sub-section (1) of Sec. 246 be an amount arrived at after all
                  the increases have been given effect to; and

                  (b) in respect of land to which the proviso to Sec. 247 applies,
F                 be an amount determined at hereditary rates under that section.

                (1) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) may be paid in
            cash or, if the State Government so prescribes, in form of bonds or
            otherwise."

G                S. 137. Grant of certificate. - (1) If the application has been duly
            made and the Assistant Collector is satisifed 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
H           sirdar shall, from the date on which the amount referred to in sub-
-
                     DEO NANDAN v. RAM SARAN [KIRPAL, J.]                      213
            section (1) of Section 134 has been deposited                               A
                  (a) become and be deemed to be a bhumidhar of the holding
                  or the share in respect of which the certificate has been
                  granted; and

                  (b) be liable for payment of such reduced amount on account           B
                  of land revenue for the holding or his share therein, as the case
                  may be, one-half of the amount of land revenue payable or
                  deemed to be payable by him therefor on the date of application.

                 Provided further that in the cases referred to in Explanation II of
             section 134 the sirdar shall, during the period a reduced amount is        C
             payable in a~cordance with section 246 or 247, be liable for payment
             of one-half of the amount payable from time to time.

                 Explanation. - For the purposes of clause (b) the land revenue
             payable by a sirdar on the date aforesaid shall, where it exceeds an
             amount double that computed at the hereditary rates applicable, be
                                                                                        D
             deemed to be equal to such amount.

                  (2A) Where the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of section
             134 is deposited on a date othet than the first day of the agricultural
             year, the land revenue payable by the bhumidhar under clause (b) o{
                                                                                        E
             sub-section (2) for the remainder' of the agricultural year in which the
             amount is deposited shall be determined in such manner as may be
             prescribed."

           Section 134, from its plain language, indicates and shows that 011 the
    application being made and 10 times the land revenue being paid, the sirdar         F
    becomes entitled 'with effect from the date on which the amount had been
    deposited' to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section
    137 of the Act. The Section clearly specifies the date with effect from which
    the rights would stand acquired. The date is the one on which the amount
    contemplated by Section 134 is deposited. This clearly obviates the uncer-
                                                                                        G
    tainty of the point of time when the title is transfened by fixing the date as
    being the one when the amount is deposited. It would be immaterial as to when
    the declaration under Section 137 is made because that declaration must
    necessarily take effect from the date when the amount is deposited.




-         Whatever little doubt there may be in this construction of section 134        H
                                                                                        r




    214                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A   is eliminated by the perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 137. It is to be
    noticed that, as observed by the lower appellate court, that before amendment
    in 1962, sub-section (2) of Section 137 of the Act provided that it is only
    upon the grant of certificate under sub-section (1) of Section 137 that the
    sirdar shall from the date thereof become or be deemed to be a bhumidhar
    of the holding or the share in respect of which the certificate has been
B
    granted. The amendment of sub-section (2) of section 137 by the Amendment
    Act 21 of 1962 with effect from 13th December, 1962 brought Section 137(2)
    in line with Section 134. The two provisions read together clearly provide
    that as and when the certificate under Section 137 is granted. it must relate
    back and be effective from the date on which the amount referred to in sub-
c   section (1) of Section 134 bas been deposited.

            It is no doubt true that in the Full Bench decision in BanshUJhar v. Smt.
    Dhirajadlwri and Others (supra). in the Single Judge decision inMobin KJwn
    v. Chunnu Khan and Others (supra) and in the decision in Raglamaru/on Singh
    and Another v. Vaslnvant Singh. (1978) Revenue Decisions 183, a different
D
    view bas been expressed by the Allahabad High Court. In the Full Bench
    decision, the view taken is that it is from the date when the order is passed
    under Section 137 that the sirdar becomes a bhumidhar. In the latter two
    cases. it has been held that if after filing of the application and making
    payment of the land revenue the applicant dies. then certificate in his name
E   cannot be granted. In our opinion, the said decisions run counter to the plain
    language and meaning of Sections 134 and 137 as they stood at the relevant
    point of time. When a certificate is issued under Section 137, it in fact
    recognises the position as on the date when the application was made and
    the payment contemplated under Section 134(1) was deposited. The certifi-
    cate,, in other words. will have a retrospective effect and would relate back
F
    to the date of the application. There was nothing to prevent the revenue
    authorities from allowing the application filed under Section 134(1) on the
    day when it was presented. The underlying intention of the legislature,
    therefore. clearly is that as and when the said application is accepted and
    order is passed under Section 137, it must relate back to the date when the
G   application was filed. Such a situation is not unknown to law. Mr. Prem
    Prasad Juneja. Learned counsel for the appellants. as an analogy, has drawn
    our attention to Order 22 Rule 6, C.P.C. which provides that if any of the
    parties to a suit dies after the hearing has been completed and before the
    judgment is pronounced. the suit would not abate. The doctrine of relation
H   back has been incorporated in Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari
                  DEO NANDAN v. RAM SARAN [KIRPAL, J.)                       215
Abolition and Land Refonns Act.                                                      A
      We are. therefore. of the opinion that the lower appellate court had
rightly interpreted Sections 134 cµid 137 and the High Court was in error in
overruling the said decision.

      For the aforesaid reasons. the appeal is allowed. the judgment of the          B
High Court is set aside and the decision of the lower appellate court is restored.
the effect of which would be that the suit filed by the appellants would stand
decreed.

A.Q.                                                            Appeal allowed.