Case: State Of U.P.(Now Uttarakhand) Vs. Rabindra Singh

the definition of "public premises" in the Public Premises Act deliberately excluded from its purview the land vesting in Gaon Sabha or 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 Singhs case where the learned Judge specifically referred to the pleadings of the parties and came to 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: "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 appertaining to such building or part of a building, andii) any fitting or fixtures affixed to or any furniture supplied with such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof:but does not include any land which for the time is held by a tenureholder under any law relating to land-tenture (emphasis supplied)i) is vested in or entrusted to the management, of Gaon Sabha or any other local authority orii) 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 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;" 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 to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofi) any company definedii) any local authority;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 Government, oriv) any society................And also includesi) Nazul land or any other premises entrusted to the management of a local authority (including any building built with Government funds on land belonging to the State Government after the entrustment of the land to the local authority, not being 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 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." 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: "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 familys livelihood particularly in our State of Uttar Pradesh where the majority of citizens consists of Agriculturist. Needless 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 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 122B) (Emphasis supplied 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 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 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 by the Allahabad High Court was a correct view of the matter. We fully agree with the reasons given by the Allahabad High Court in both Baldeo Raj and Kripal Singhs cases and, therefore, hold that the land covered under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not be governed 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 "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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. Smt. Pinki Anand, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri P.N. Gupta and Shri Vaibhav Jain assailed the impugned judgments. We had a specific query to the learned Senior counsel as to whether the aforementioned relied upon judgments in Baldeo Rajs case (cited supra) and Kripal Singhs 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 as such by at least the State of Uttar Pradesh. It must be noted that Baldev Rajs case (cited supra) continues to be dominating the scene since 1984 while Kripal Singhs 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 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 the Allahabad High Court in Baldeo Rajs case as well as in Kripal Singhs 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 present case.11. We will now proceed to decide upon the correctness of these two judgments. In Baldeo Rajs 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.28 of 1976. 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 came to the conclusion that the provisions contained in Section 4/6, 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 Judge further rightly found that Section 117, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act made it clear that the 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 superintendence, management and control from Gaon Sabha to some other local authority or vice versa. Relying on the Khatauni infasli 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 Sectionwhich 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 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 Singhs case where the learned Judge specifically referred to the pleadings of the parties and came to the conclusion that the tenure holder therein was classified as Sirdar and had become a Bhumidar.We have very carefully considered the judgments as well as the provisions and we are in no doubt that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court was a correct view of the matter. We fully agree with the reasons given by the Allahabad High Court in both Baldeo Raj and Kripal Singhs cases and, therefore, hold that the land covered under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not be governed 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 atenureholder under any law relating to landtenure is not "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.