Appeals Nos
653 to 655 of 1964
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated November 1 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos 267 and 292 of 1957
C K Daphtary Attorney General Shanti Bhushan AdvocateGeneral UP and 0
P Rana for the appellants in CAs
Nos 653 and 654 of 1964 and the respondents in CA No 655 of 1964
A K Sen B R L Iyengar V P Misra section K Mehta and KL Mehta for the respondent in CAs
Nos 653 and 654 of 1964 and the appellant in C A No 655 of 1964
363 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
These appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad raise one principal question Whether the amendment of the definition of the word estate in clause 8 of section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act made by section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Amendment Act 1963 hereinafter called the impugned Act is within the definition of the word estate in article 31A2 of the Constitution These appeals arise out of a petition filed by Raja Anand Brahma Shah of Agori Barhar Raj under article 226 of the Constitution
The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification No 35491A 499 dated June 30 1953 extending the provisions of Reforms Act 1950 to apply to the areas to the South of Kaimur Range
It then issued another notification No 39491 A 4991949 dated July 1953 directing the vesting of all estates situated to the south of Kaimur including the Pargana Agori owned by the petitioner
The Pargana Agori is comprised of 123 villages
At the time the petition was filed and the judgment of the Single Judge dated November 8 1957 was delivered section 38 of the Reforms Act stood as follows   Estate  means the area included under an entry in any of the registers prepared and maintained under clause a b c or d of section 32 of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act 1901 or in the registers maintained under clause e of the said section in so far as it relates to a permanent tenure holder and includes share in or of an estate
 The case of the petitioner in short was that Pargana Agor was not an estate within section 38 of the Reforms Act because nor ecords were prepared and maintained under the provisions of section 32 of the Land Revenue Act 1901 in respect of Pargana Agori and the records alleged to have been prepared between 1840 to 1843 under the Bengal Regulations were unauthorised and the Government itself did not approve these records at any time
The learned Single Judge keeping in view the definition in section 38 of the Reforms Act came to the conclusion that the whole of 81 villages including the cultivated
area the forest the hill and everything else would vest in the State of Uttar Pradesh
He held that the Raja s name alone was entered in the khewats of 64 villages and in the khewats of 17 villages although the names of under proprietors were written the Raja was the proprietor of the entire villages because the Raja s name was mentioned as Malik Ala
With respect to the remaining 42 villages he held that only the areas mentioned in the khewats of the different villages and not the forests and hills attached to them Sup
CI66 10 364 fell within section 38
In the result he allowed the petition in part and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take possession nor to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the hills and jungle appertaining to the said 42 villages as distinguished from the areas mentioned in the khewats of these villages at the time the vesting order was issued
He dismissed the rest of the claim
The petitioner and the State of Uttar Pradesh both filed appeals the petitioner claiming that the petition should be allowed in entirety the State claiming that the petition should be dismissed
During the pendency of the appeals U P Act XIV of 1958 substituted the following new section 38 in the Reforms Act with retrospective effect from July 1952 38 Estate means and shall be deemed to have always meant the area under one entry in any of the registers described in clause a b c or d and in so far as it relates to a permanent tenure holder in any register described in clause e of section 32 of the U P Land Revenue Act 1901 as it stood immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act or subject to the restriction mentioned with respect to the register described in clausee in any of the registers maintained under section 33 of the said Act or in a similar register described in or prepared or maintained under any other Act Rule Regulation or Order relating to the preparation or maintenance of record of rights in force at any time and includes share in or of an estate 
Explanation  The Act Rule Regulation or order referred to in this clause shall include Act Rule Regulation or order made or promulgated by the erstwhile Indian State whose territories were merged or absorbed in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the date of vesting notified under section 4 of this Act
 In the light of this definition the Division Bench came to the conclusion that only the areas expressly mentioned in the Khewats vested in the State
It accordingly dismissed the appeals filed by the State and partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner
The State filed two petitions for leave to appeal one against the judgment in Special Appeal No 2671957 and the other against the judgment in Special Appeal No 2921957
The Raja filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment in Special Appeal No 2671957
The High Court granted three certificates on August 16 1963 and three appeals are now before us all arising out of the one petition under article 226 filed by the petitioner Raja
On January 1 1964 the English translation of the impugned Act U P Act No 1 of 1964 was published it having received assent 365 of the President on December 31 1963
The relevant portion of the impugned Act reads as follows Section 2
In the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 hereinafter called the principal Act in clause 8 of Section 3 the following proviso shall with effect from the first day of July 1952 be added before the explanation and the notifications issued under the principal Act including sections 2 and 4 thereof or the U P Land Reforms Amendment Act 1954 including section I thereof or the U P Land Reforms Amendment Act 1956 including section I thereof or the U P Land Reforms Amendment Act 1958 including section I thereof shall notwithstanding any judgment decree determination or order of any Court be so construed as if the said proviso had since the said date formed part of the principal Act as also of the definition of the word estate  as given in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Amendment Act 1958 Provided that in Mirzapur District each of the areas bounded as given in Schedule VII shall notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing definition be deemed to be an estate
After Schedule VI of the principal Act the following new Schedule shall be added and be deemed to have been so added with effect from the first day of July 1952
Schedule VII See proviso to clause 8 of section 3 1
The area known as Pargana Agori in district Mirzapur bounded in the North by the Kaimur Range confining with the villages Padaunian also known as Parhwanian Chingauri Guraul also known as Gurwal Karaundia Barauli Dumkari Khirhata Gadman Khajraul also known as Khajuraul Dugauli Baragaon Jurauli Jurauli Kulani Rajpur Raipura Senduri Raghunathpur Bahawar Basauli Baghuwari Lodhi Raunp Musahi Churk and Urauli also known as Arauli of Pargana Barhar and villages Biranchuwa Makri Bari Pokhraundh Lauwa Cherui Baghma Markundi of Pargana Bijaigarh of district Mirzapur as far as the Western boundary of village Sasnai of Pargana Bijaigarh which then forms the boundary between Parganas Agori and Bijaigarh upto the point opposite the junction of the rivers Kanhar and Son and thence onward the River Son forms its northern boundary
366 in the east and south east by the territory of the State of Bihar in the South by Tehsil Dudhi of District Mirzapur in the South West and West by the territory of Madhya Pradesh erstwhile Rewa State but excluding village Kishun Chak which is a separate estate within Pargana Agori and is bounded on the North East and South by village Kon Khas and in the West by village Mohiuddinpur of District Mirzapur
 The learned counsel for the State has raised three points before us in the two appeals filed by the State 1 In view of the impugned Act Pargana Agori is an estate within the Reforms Act 2 The High Court was in error in holding that on account of the mention of a wrong area in the khewat the entry cannot be said to be in respect of the entire area 3 Naksha Pattidaris prepared by Rai Manak Chand in 1843 in connection with settlement operations constituted record of rights
On the first point M On the first point Mr A K Sen the learned counsel for the Raja contends that the impugned Act cannot be saved under article 31A because it has not been passed for agrarian reforms and secondly that the impugned Act includes an area within the definition of estate in the Reforms Act which is not an estate within article 31A2
He says that the validity of the acquisition under the Reforms Act must be judged in the light of article 31 and article 19
article 31A2 as enacted by Constitution Seventeenth Amend ment Act 1964 reads as follows 31A2 In this article a the expression estate  shall in relation to any local area have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include i any jagir inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the States of Madras and Kerala any janmam right ii any land held under ryotwari settlement iii any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto including waste land forest land for pasture or sites of buildings and other 367 structures occupied by cultivators of land agricultural labourers and village artisans b the expression right  in relation to an estate shall include any rights vesting in a proprietor sub proprietor under proprietor tenure holder raivat under raivat or other intermediary and any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue
 It is apparent from the definition that as far as the first part of clause a is concerned we have to look to the meaning given to the expression estate or its local equivalent in an existing law relating to tenures
We cannot have recourse to the meaning given in a law which is not existing law
Existing law is defined in article 36610 thus  Existing law  means any law ordinance order bye law rule or regulation passed or made before the commencement of this Constitution by any Legislature authority or person having power to make such a law Ordinance order bye law rule or regulation Therefore if the State desires to invoke article 31A and rely on the definition contained in the first part of clause a it must show that the area sought to be acquired is an estate within the definition contained in a law relating to land tenures passed before the commencement of the Constitution
The relevant definition for our purposes is contained in section 44 of the UP Land Revenuie Act 1901
It is not necessary to decide whether Pargana Agor ails within the definition of Mahal as we have come to the conclusion that Pargana Agori is a Jagir or Inam or a grant of a similar nature within clause a i of article 31A2
But before giving our reasons for this conclusion we will dispose of the contention of the learned counsel that Pargana Agori is an estate within cl
a iii of that Article
According to the learned counsel for the State any waste land or forest land would fall within clause aiii He says that it is not necessary that it should be held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto
In other words he would rewrite clause aiii as follows Clause a iii A any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto B any waste land forest land for pasture C sites of building and other structures occupied by cultivators of land agricultural labourers and village artisan
368 We are unable to read clause aiii in this way
It seems to us that if this was the intention cl
aiii would have been split up and waste land forest land and land for pasture would have figured separately in a separate clause
There are vast areas of forest land and waste land in India and it is not to be expected that these would be included in the definition indirectly by expanding the word land
If this was the intention at least the word including would have been omitted and substituted by any
Further the whole object of article 31A is to carry out agrarian reforms and it is difficult to see how agrarian reforms can be furthered by the acquisition of every parcel of forest land or waste land
In our opinion the word including is intended to clarify or explain the concept of land held or let for purposes ancillary to agriculture
The idea seems to be to remove any doubts on the point whether waste land or forest land could be held to be capable of being held or let for purposes ancillary to agriculture
We must therefore hold that forest land or waste land in the area in dispute cannot be deemed to be an estate within claiii unless it was held or let for purposes ancillary to agriculture
There is no dispute that the cultivated portion of Pargana Agori would fall within clause aiii
The next point is whether Pargana Agori is a Jagir Inam or other similar grant within article 31A2ai
The learned counsel for the State relies on the following facts
About the year 1744 A D Shambu Shah the then Raja of Agori was dispossessed of his domains by Raja Balwant Singh and he brought the estate to his own use
It appears from Robert s report that Raja Balwant Singh and his successor Chet Singh remained in possession for about 40 years
During the insurrection of Chet Singh Adil Shah grandson of Shambu Shah attended on Warren Hastings and made himself so useful that the Governor General gave him a sanad restoring him the Zamindari of Agori Barhar vide Sherring Hindu Tribes Caste Vol 1 pages 182 183reproducedin Baijnath Prasad Singh vs
Taj Bali Singh1 He helped the British in the military operations against Chet Singh thus Meanwhile the information of Chet Singh s flight reached the Governor General at Chunar and a strong force was sent under Major Popham to take possession of Latifpur and then to reduce Bijaigarh
The GovernorGeneral after visiting Patita returned to Ramnagar on September 28th and after restoring confidence by the issue of proclamations of amnesty formally installed Mahip Narayan Singh the daughter s son of Balwant Singh as 1 AIR 1917 All
369 successor to Chet Singh
Major Popham and his forces reached Latifpur without opposition and having garrisoned the place with two companies of sepoys under Captain Palmer proceeded towards Bijaigarh which he reached after a difficult and trying march
A survey of the height of the fort immediately dispelled all idea of capturing it by escalade
But the Raja of Agori who had been expelled by Balwant Singh and was now seeking restoration to his ancestral domains pointed out that the adjoining hill of Lowa Koh commanded the fort and was undefended
Accordingly a battery was at
once thrown up on Lowa Koh as also on another hill to the north of the fort
On the following day fire was opened from these batteries and resulted in the speedy silencing of the guns of the enemy which were very ineffectively served vide District Gazetteer of Mirzapur page 237 The sanad is dated October 9 1781 and the translation reads as follows Be it known to Azzat Asar respected Adal Singh Zamindar Pargana Agori
That on the basis of his application it has been learnt that the Zamindari of the aforesaid Pargana is his ancient hereditary property and that some years ago Raja Balwant Singh forcibly dispossessed him therefrom and himself took possession thereof Therefore in view of Bargadam Haqeeq he should be restored to his own rights so that he may carry on the settling and management of the aforesaid Pargana under the authority of the Amil and Rafat Wa Awali Martabat Raja Mahip Narain Bahadur 
It be considered as very urgent and be complied with accordingly
Dated the 20th of Shawalul Mukarram 1195 Hijri Qudsi corresponding to the 9th of October 1781 A D Qalmi
 Another translation appears in Baijnath Prasad Singh vs Tej Bali Singh1 Be it known to Adil Shah respectable zamindar of Pergana Agori that on a petition having been made it is known that the zamindari in the pargana aforesaid is his old ancestral property
Several years ago Raja Balwant Singh forcibly dispossessed him and brought it to his use
Therefore in lieu of former rights he should remain in proprietary possession of his share as heretofore
He should make arrangements as regards the cultivation of the land and population of the pargana aforesaid in accordance with the directions of the Revenue Officer 1 AIR 1917 All
370 and Raja Mohit Narain Bahadur of high rank
He is insisted on doing as directed above On October 15 1781 a sanad was granted to the petitioner s ancestor Adil Shah granting him an Ultmagah Jagir of Rs 8001from Fasli year 1189
Adil Shah obtained possession of the Pargana with the assistance of the British troops
On November 4 1803 a sanad was granted to the petitioner s ancestors granting a Jagir of Rs 8001 per annum
Mr A K Sen contends that the sanad was set aside by resolution of the Governor General in Council dated April 1788 see paragraph 16 of the GO No 3824 of August 30 1845 printed on page 97 of the Thomason Despatches
He relies on this statement contained in the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No 4541955 dated November 2 1962
But this statement refers to the sanad dated October 15 1781 and not to the sanad dated October 9 1781 or the later sanad dated November 4 1803
It appears from the District Gazetteer page 255 that as soon as Adil Shah obtained possession of the zamindari Adil Shah really forfeited his claim to the assigned villages the revenue of which was Rs 8001 and as possession had been obtained at the time of the general settlement in 1788 the Governor General in Council ordered the assignment to be resumed
Adil Shah died in 1794 and the New Raja became involved in monetary difficulties
Mr Barton the then Collector made certain proposals and they were accepted at Calcutta and orders were issued to him to revise the assessment of Agori Barhar in such a way as to give the Raja a net profit of Rs 8001 per annum or to allot him in lieu thereof a certain number of villages assessed to that amount
Accordingly the revision of certain revenue paying villages took place and in addition to the villages assigned by Mr Duncan certain others assessed to a sum of Rs 4000 were made over to the Raja
This arrangement brought taluqas Agori and Singrauli into the Raja s possesssion with the result that he became in 1804 both zamindar and jagirdar or assignee of the Government demand in taluqas Kon and Agori Singrauli and 28 villages in Barhar
Paras 11 to 15 of Robert s report dated January 1 1847 are to the same effect
It seems to us clear from the above facts that Pargana Agori is still held under the sanad dated October 9 1781 and the sanad dated November 4 1803
The second sanad is a grant of land revenue
That is definitely a Jagir
The learned counsel for the State contends that the fact that Adil Shah asserted a prior title may have been one of the reasons for the restoration of the zamindari but it was in essence a new grant made on political considerations
He further points out 371 that conditions are also laid down in the Sanad
Adil Shah was enjoined to make arrangements regarding cultivation and population of the pargana and had to obey the directions of the revenue officer and Raja Mohit Narain Bahadur in this behalf
As stated by this Court in Thakur Amar Singhji vs State of Rajasthan1 we do not find any sufficient ground for putting a restricted meaning on the word Jagir  in article 31A
At the time of the enactment of that Article the word had nearly acquired both in popular usage and legislative practice a wide connotation and it will be in accord with sound canons of interpretation to ascribe that connotation to that word rather than an archaic meaning to be gathered from a study of ancient tenures
 An inam is explained in Wilsons  Glossary thus A gift a benefication in general a gift by a superior to an inferior
In India and especially in the south and amongst the Marathas the term was especially applied to grants of land held rent free and in hereditary and perpetual occupation the tenure came in time to be qualified by the reservation of a portion of the assessable revenue or by the exaction of all proceeds exceeding the intended value of the original assignment the term was also vaguely applied to grants of rent free land without reference to perpetuity or any specified conditions
The grants are also distinguishable by their origin from the ruling authorities or from the village communities and are again distinguishable by peculiar reservations or by their being applicable to different objects
 In our opinion a grant by the British of lands for services
rendered to them would be a grant falling within cl
It seems to us that on the facts of the case the grant was in thenature of a grant similar to a Jagir or inam
The fact that Balwant Singh and Chet Singh held possession of this Pargana for 40 years cannot be ignored
This shows that to all intents and purposes Adil Shah had lost the pargana and it was in effect a fresh grant in the nature of Jagir or inam for services rendered to the British
Adil Shah s assertion to title had not been verified
Although it may be one of the reasons for the grant it is clear that if it had not been for the grant and its enforcement by the British troop Adit Shah would not have been able to recover the possession of the Pargana
His title to the pargana would rest on the grant and not
the alleged previous title
If it is held as we do hold that the area in dispute is a grant in the nature of Jagir or inam and consequently an estate within 1  372 article 3 1A2 the impugned Act can claim the protection of article 3 1A
The notifications dated June 30 1953 and July 1953 must therefore be upheld
Mr A K Sen further urges that the acquisition of the estate was not for the purposes of agrarian reforms because hundreds of square miles of forest are sought to be acquired
But as we have held that the area in dispute is a grant in the nature of Jagir or inam its acquisition like the acquisition of all Jagirs inams or similar grants was a necessary step in the implementation of the agrarian reforms and was clearly contemplated in article 3 1 A
In this view it is not necessary to decide whether the area in dispute is a Mahal or covered by section 38 of the Reforms Act as it existed in 1958 or earlier or any other question which was raised before us
In the result the appeals filed by the State are accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner Raja is dismissed and the petition under article 226 filed by the Raja is dismissed
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs


Summary:
The State of Uttar Pradesh issued two notifications in 1953 by one of which the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 was extended to certain areas in which Pargana Agori which was owned by the respondent was situate and by the other it was directed that all  estates in the area including the Pargana should vest in the State
The respondent challenged the notifications by a writ petition on the ground that the Pargana was not an estate within section 3 8 of the Act
While the matter was pending in the High Court the definition in section 3 8 was amended by UP Act 14 of 1958 and while appeals were pending in this Court by UP Act 1 of 1964 by which the Pargana was deemed to be an estate
The amendments had retrospective effect from 1st July 1952
The appellant State contended that Act 1 of 1964 could not be impugned because the Pargana was an estate  either within article 3 1A2 a or iii
HELD  The forest land or waste land in the Pargana could not be deemed to be an estate within article 3 1A2 a iii unless it was held or let for purposes ancillary to agriculture
But the entire Pargana is la grant in the nature of a jagir or inam having been held by the respondent s ancestor under sanads granting the land and the land revenue to him for services rendered to the British and consequently is an estate within article 31A2 a i of the Constitution
368 D 370 G H 371 F H Thakur Amar Singhji vs State of Rajasthan 1955 2 SCR 303 followed
The acquisition of the Pargana was a necessary step in the implementation of agrarian reforms contemplated by article 31A
Therefore UP Act 1 of 1964 can claim the protection of article 31A and the two notifications must be upheld
372 A C