Case: State Of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kunwar Sri Trivikram Narain Singh

1. Under a treaty between the East India Company and Nawab Asafuddaula, the Province of Banaras was ceded about the year 1775 to the East India Company. The Company then granted a sanad to Raja Chet Singh, the former ruler of Banaras, and under that sanad, the rights and powers previously held by Raja Chet Singh were conferred afresh. Raja Chet Singh granted in jagir, pargana "Syudpore Bhettree" in perpetuity to his Diwan Ousan Singh as remuneration for services rendered to his family. Raja Chet Singh having renounced his gadi, the East India Company confirmed the grant made by the Raja in favour of Ousan Singh. Raja Chet Singh was succeeded by Raja Mahip Narain Singh who executed a sanad in favour of Ousan Singh affirming the grant.2. Land revenue settlements were made in the Province of Banaras about the year 1789-90. but the jagirs including "Syudpore Bhettree" were excluded from that settlement. Ousan Singh died in or about the year 1800, and his son Sheo Narain Singh succeeded to the jagir. In the enquiry held by the Collector of Ghazipore into the proprietary right claimed by the jagirdar under Regulation II of 1819, it was declared that the grant to Ousan Singh was for life only and did not confer a heritable or transferable tenure in the parganas. The decision of the Collector was confirmed by the Commissioner of Bihar and Banaras, subject to the recommendation that Sheo Narain Singh should be maintained in possession of the parganas for life. The Government then directed in 1828 that a detailed settlement be made with the village zamindars, and offered Sheo Narain Singh allowance for life of one-half of the revenue to be assessed on the pargana. Sheo Narain Singh declined to accept the offer and commenced an action in the civil court contesting the validity of the order resuming the jagir. The Government considered the question afresh, and resolved to revise the order of resumption and in July 1830, ordered that Sheo Narain Singh be considered Tehsildar of parganas "Syudpore Bhettree", and that the office be treated as hereditary devolving upon the descendants of the jagirdar and held so long as the incumbent did not infringe the privileges found to belong to other classes at the time of formation of the settlement. Sheo Narain Singh died before the resolution of the Government was communicated to him and he was succeeded by his son Harnarain Singh who withdrew the suit and signed a compromise incorporating the terms of the resolution.3. On August 19, 1831, the Secretary to the Government addressed to the Agent of the Governor-General at Banaras a letter requesting the Secretary to the Governor-General in the Pension department to prepare the necessary documents relating to the grant of a sanad specifying that parganas "Syudpore Bhettreer were granted on an "istmrar" tenure to Harnarain Singh for his own benefit and of his heirs and successors in perpetuity on condition of their paying to government 3/4ths of the Jamma which the revenue officers may in a resettlement of the parganas assess thereon, and that all claims to proprietary right to any village or villages situate in the said parganas shall be fully enquired into and in the event of any such claims being established to the satisfaction of the Government, the village or villages forming the subject of the claim shall be considered distinct from and independent of the grant and that a settlement shall be made with the proprietors as in other cases; that the office of Tehsildar shall belong to Harnarain Singh and be hereditary in his family so long as the conditions prescribed for the duties of that office be not infringed, and that in virtue of such office, the separate proprietors shall continue to pay the Jamma which may be assessed on their villages through Harnarain Singh or such other member of the family as the Government may appoint, provided that 1/4th of the Jamma of such separated villages shall be deducted from the payment to be made to the Government in lieu of all remuneration for discharging the duties of Tehsildar, and provided further that until the settlement shall be completed, Harnarain Singh shall continue to pay Jamma to Government. This proposal calling upon Harnarain Singh to bear all the expenses of the administration and any loss in collection which may occur, departed from the terms of the compromise. Harnarain Singh refused to accept the offer of a sanad on the terms set out in that letter and also the of office of Tehsildar. In the meanwhile, proceedings for settlement were commenced and on November 16, 1832, the Settlement officer reported on the conclusion of a summary settlement of the parganas that in 166 mahals, the village zamindars established proprietary rights and the revenue assessed upon them was Rs. 1,28,960. He further reported that 12 mahals of which the gross revenue was Rs. 22,840 were settled with the jagirdar at a reduced revenue of Rs. 17,130.4. Harnarain Singh having refused to undertake the office of Tahsildar on the terms offered by the Government, the Board of Revenue suggested that Harnarain Singh should receive 1/4th of the net collections after deducting from the gross collections the cost of Tahsil establishment thereby giving him an income of Rs. 36,322-8-0. The Board of Revenue recommended that a sanad be issued under the authority of the Lt. Governor conferring "the pension of Rs. 36,322-8-0 on Babu Harnarain Singh and his heirs in perpetuity."5. In a letter dated September 13,1837, it was recorded that the Lt. Governor of N. W. F. Province was of the view that it would be more conformable with the terms of the agreement if the allowance on Harnarain Singhs villages (12 mahals) were given in the form of a remission of revenue to the amount of one-fourth, the Jamma being fixed at Rs. 17,130 instead of Rs. 22,940, and in the villages settled with the zamindars (166 mahals) Harnarain Singh be paid annually a pension of 1/4th of the collections after deducting the Tahsildar charge, and on that footing Rs. 30,612-8-0 be granted to Harnarain Singh. By letter dated October 19, 1837, from the Secretary to the Lt. Governor, N. W. F. Province, the Secretary to the Board of Revenue was informed that the IA. Governor had resolved to adopt the Boards recommendation made in their letter dated September 26, 1837, and to allow Harnarain Singh 1/4th of the net collections after deducting the expenses of the Tahsildar establishment i.e., Rs. 30,612-8-0 out of a net Jamma of the villages amounting to Rs. 1,28,960. About the 12 mahals settled with Harnarain Singh, the allowance was directed to be made in the form of a remission of 1/4th of revenue assessed. Finally, by letter dated September 14, 1838, from the Secretary to the Sadar Board of Revenue to the officiating Commissioner 5th Division, Banaras, it was stated that "what the Government intended to give is a dear fourth of the net revenue of the Pargana to the Muqurrureedar as pension." The letter furtherThe arrangement of paying a portion of that pention by a remission of revenue on certain mauzas settled, as was supposed, directly with the Muqurrureedar was proposed by the Board and allowed by Government as a mere matter of convenience to the parganas. Neither Government nor Board intended to alienate any part of the muqurrureedars pension to his son or to any other person.3. If the mauzas supposed to have been settled with the muqurrureedar for his own use and behalf, turn out to be held by another person on a distinct interest, it will be necessary, the Board observe, to modify the arrangement previously allowed and to collect the whole assessed revenue of those mauzas as of all others; and when the same shall have been collected to pay the Muqurrureedar his clear fourth of the net collections.4. As however, these mauzas were settled by the Government with the Muqurrureedar his responsibility for the Jumma any portion of revenue which may fall in arrear by person or the arrangement made by him, or of the domestic differences of his family, must be made good from his pension, before the assignment of the fourth share of the net collections can have effect.5. The Board must consider the Muqurrureedar as the owner of these villages during his life. With his family arrangements they have no concern. But if it will be his wish that the whale revenue be collected from these villages and one-fourth be returned to him from the treasury instead of receiving that fourth in the shape of a remission, he is at liberty to make the election.6. He is also, the Board remark, of course at liberty to cause those mauzas to be transferred or sold in the case of arrear, but his responsibility for the assessed Jumma as fixed by the act of settlement will remain theis manifest that the recommendations made by the Board of Revenue and the Secretary to the Government in the lengthy correspondence varied from time to time, but in the final letter, it appears to have been made clear that an amount equivalent to 1/4th of the net revenue of the 166 mahals be given as pension annually to the jagirdar.6. A formal sanad, though contemplated, was, it appears, never issued, but it is common ground that the allowance was paid through the Treasury office of the Collector of Ghazipore year after year since the year 1838 to Harnaraian Singh and his descendants. This allowance to the jagirdar of "Syudpore Bhettree" was called sometimes in the revenue papers "malikana" sometimes "pension" and sometimes a "share in the revenue of the entire pargana.7. In 1951, the U. P. Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951, and relying upon S. 6(b) of the Act, the revenue authorities stopped payment of the allowance to the descendants of Harnarain Singh. The respondent who is a descendant of Harnarain Singh then presented Writ Petition No. 464 of 1954 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the State of Uttar Pradesh to forbear from interfering with his right to regular payment of the "pension, allowance or malikana" payable in lieu of the hereditary estate of Harnarain Singh in respect of parganas "Syudpore Bhettree" and for an order or payment of the "pension, allowance or malikana" as it fell due. The respondent claimed inter alia that by virtue of the notification issued under S. 4 of the Act, his right to receive the pension did not cease, especially when the scheme of the Act and the principles of assessment did not contemplate payment of compensation in respect of extinction of his right to the allowance, and that in any event, there was no nexus between the pension and the estates sought to be acquired under Act 1 of 1951 or the zamindari system sought to be abolished, because the pension was neither land nor immovable property nor an estate within the meaning of the Act and being merely compensation payable to him in lieu of the rights of his ancestors over the estates comprised within the pargana "Syudpore Bhettree" it was not liable to vest in the State. The High Court rejected certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition (which objections are not canvassed in this appeal) and held that the right of the respondent to receive Rs. 36,330 per annum was not an "estate" within the meaning of the Act and that the right was not acquired under the Act nor did compensation fall to be paid for the same. In the view of the High Court, under S.6 of the Act, only the rights of the intermediaries in respect of land revenue of the lands comprised in the estate were extinguished and that the rights of third parties under a contract with the State not relating to the rights and privileges of intermediaries, tenants or other persons having interest in land were not affected, and the predecessors in interest of the respondent having been granted an allowance annually in lieu of abandonment of the right to realise land revenue, the arrangement did not come to an end because of the "abolition of the zamindari" under the Act.

Reasoning: 12. But of the 12 mahals, the respondent was a proprietor: the land of the mahals was "estate" within the meaning of S. 3 (8) of the Act and by S. 4, the right of the respondent in that estate stood vested in and transferred to the State. It is true that by the arrangement of the year 1838, confirming the earlier compromise, remission of 25% was granted to the respondents predecessors in respect of payment of land revenue. If the right of the respondent in the 12 mahals ceased, the right to remission could not be converted into a positive right to receive the amount thereof, notwithstanding the extinction of his right in those 12 mahals. The right to remission of land revenue was a right in respect of land revenue in the estate which stood vested in the State. The letters dated September 13,1837, October 19, 1837 and June 15,1838 make it abundantly clear that the difference of Rs. 5710 between the amount originally assessed and the Jamma recoverable was to be remission of revenue. The right of the respondent to the 12 Mahals was transferred to the State by virtue of the notification under S. 4, and the consequences set out in sub-s. (b) of S. 6 relating to those 12 mahals ensued.13. We are therefore unable to agree with the High Court that for the amount of Rs. 5710 which was treated as remission, the respondent was entitled to obtain relief or, the footing that that right was not affected by the issue of the notification under S. 4 of the Act.14. The claim of the respondent in respect of the allowance granted as consideration for abandonment of the right to 166 mahals rests on a firmer ground. It is true that this allowance was computed as 1/4 th share of the revenue assessed on the 166 mahals. But the respondent under the arrangement has no interest in the land of the 166 mahals or in the land revenue payable in respect thereof. By the order of the Government, the right of Sheo Narain Singh to the entire pargana "Syudpore Bhettree" was resumed. Sheo Narain Singh challenged the authority of the Government to resume his interest in the Jagir and the dispute pending in the civil court was compromised on the terms which were finalised in the year 1838 whereby Harnarain Singh and his descendants were given an allowance in amount equal to 1/4 th of the net revenue of 166 mahals. Because the annual allowance is of the mahals, the right of the respondent does not acquire the character of an interest in land or in land revenue. Under the arrangement, the entire land revenue was to be collected by the Government and in the collection Harnarain Singh and his descendants had no interest or obligation. As a consideration for relinquishing the right to the land and the revenue thereof, the respondent and his ancestors were given an allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0. The allowance was in a sense related to the land revenue assessed on the land, i.e., it was fixed as a percentage of the land revenue but the percentage was merely a measure, and indicated the source of the right in lieu of which the allowance was given. The amount is described as "person" in the letters dated September 14, 1838, July 7, 1837 and June 15, 1838. I he words used in cl. (b) are undoubtedly wide; any right to a grant which has relation to land or land revenue would be determined by the operation of that clause. But the allowance to Harnarain Singh was not in respect of land or its revenue; it was granted as consideration for settlement of a claim litigated in a Civil court relating to thatkey words of the second part of the clause arerespect of" indicating a direct connection between a right or privilege and land in an estate or its revenue. The intention of the legislature is manifestly to extinguish estates and all derivative rights in estates and to extinguish the interest of intermediaries between the State and the tiller of the soil. If the grant or confirmation of title is in respect of a right or privilege to land in an estate or its revenue, it must determine under cl. (b); but a right to receive an allowance which is granted in consideration of extinction of a right to land or land revenue does not, by the force of cl. (b) determine. The allowance has not the quality of land or land revenue: its quantum only was measured by equating it with a fourth share in the net revenue of a part of land which was the subject matter of the suit in which the arrangement for payment of the allowance was made.16. Absence of a provision in the Act for payment of compensation for a right such as the one claimed by the respondent strongly supports the plea that the right is not intended to be acquired or extinguished. Sections 37 to 44 dead with the assessment of compensation to be paid to intermediaries. Compensation Assessment Roll of intermediaries in respect of the mahals has to be prepared and detailed instructions in that behalf are contained in Ss. 39 to 44. By S. 45, in computing the gross assets and net assets of proprietors who are assignees of land revenue and of under-proprietors, sub-proprietors, Permanent tenure-holders and permanent lessees in Avadh Ss. 39 to 44 of the Act are applicable subject to such modifications and incidental changes as may be prescribed. It is common ground that S. 78 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act has no application to "Syudpore Bhettree" pargana. To proprietors who are assignees of land revenue and whose names are recorded in the record of rights maintained under S. 32 cls. (a) to (d), the provisions of Ss. 39 to 44 may undoubtedly apply subject to modifications as may be prescribed, and computation of their gross and net assets may be made accordingly. But the respondent is not an assignee of land revenue whose name is so recorded in the record of rights nor is he qua the allowance an under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, permanent tenure-holder or permanent lessee. Section 45 is a machinery provision: it does not purport to extend the field of S. 6 by prescribing consequences which are not incorporated in that section. There is in S. 45 no thing to warrant the submission of counsel for the State that rights of a land-holder to receive allowances from the Government are extinguished even without compensation, merely because he was an assignee of land revenue of some land or was a proprietor, sub-proprietor, permanent tenure-holder or permanent lessee in respect of other land in Avadh. The scheme for payment of compensation prescribed by Ss. 39 to 44 is extended to amongst others, proprietors of land who are assignees of land revenue whose names are recorded in the record of rights maintained under cls. (a) to (d) of S. 32: but a person receiving an allowance from the State of the character received by the respondent is not a proprietor who is an assignee of land revenue, and in any event, if his name is not entered in the revenue record under cls. (a) to (d) of S. 32, the provisions relating to computation of gross and net assets will not apply to him. Absence of a provision in the Act for awarding compensation to persons holding interest such as the respondent has, strongly supports the view that such interest was not to be extinguished by the operation of S. 6(b) of Act 1 of 1951.