Case: S.P. Watel &amp; Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

2. The city of Meerut is a municipality in Uttar Pradesh. Plot No. 4635A (old number 5199) is located therein. It has an area of 1 bigha and 2 biswas. It formed part of the zamindari estate belonging to Lala Nanak Chand Trust. The trust is a charitable trust vested in the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments and is managed by the Collector of Meerut through a committee of trustees. On June 23, 1926, a lease deed was executed on behalf of the trust and in favour of one Bateshwar Dayal. By the deed the aforesaid plot was let to Bateshwar Dayal. The lease was granted "for the purpose of planting a grove, erecting buildings and digging wells etc." The yearly rent was fixed at Rs. 12/8/-. The lease was for a term of 30 years with effect from June 1, 1926. The lessee agreed to surrender the land and all buildings standing thereon to the lessor on the expiry of the period of lease. The buildings would become the property of the lessor. He would have them without paying any compensation to the lessee. The lessor agreed that on the expiration of the period of lease he would at the request of the lessee grant to the lessee a new lease for another term of 30 years.3. The initial period of 30 years expired on July 1, 1956. Thereupon the trust instituted suit No. 690 of 1956 for recovery of possession over the aforesaid land from Bateshwar Dayal. During pendency of this suit Bateshwar Dayal died on March 6, 1958. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on October 24, 1958. It was, however, decreed by the first appellate court on November 30, 1959. The appellate court granted six months time to the defendants to institute a suit in the appropriate court for specific performance of the agreement to re-let for another term of 30 years.4. Bhagwat Dayal and others, heirs of Bateshwar Dayal, then instituted suit No. 34 of 1960 in the appropriate Court for specific performance of the agreement to re-let the land for another term of 30 years. The Trust contested this suit inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. This plea was upheld by the trial court and the suit was dismissed on October 30, 1961, The first appellate court affirmed the decree of the trial court on March 23, 1962.5. Bhagwat Dayal and others filed a second appeal in the Allahabad High Court against the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by the Trust on January 5, 1960. They also filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree in their own suit on April 23, 1962.6. While those appeals were pending the U. P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) was enforced in the city of Meerut. The land in dispute was declared "agricultural area, under the said Act. Thereafter a notification was issued on, June 16, 1964 under S. 8 of the Act vesting the land in the State.7. Bhagwat Dayal then moved an application before the High Court for abating the two appeals as well as the two suits out of which those appeals had arisen in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The High Court passed an order abating troth the suits and appeals. The order was made on July 25, 1968. Against this order the appellants have filed two appeals in this Court by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
It is not possible to take the view that S. 2 (1) (d) compasses a wider geography than S. 17 (1) (b). Such a construction would create an anomaly. The lessee would become bhumidhar of only such portion of the land as is being used for growing crops or as a grove or as a pasture land. The rest of the agricultural area let out to him for the purpose of erecting buildings would vest in the Government. But he would get no compensation for that portion, for under Section 24 compensation is payable only to an intermediary. But he is not an intermediary" as defined in S. 2 (7), nor a sub-intermediary as defined in Section 2 (14). He is deemed to be an intermediary for a limited purpose under Section 20 (4) but that provision is not material for our purpose. This anomaly will not result if "agricultural area" in Section 2 (1) (d) and land in an agricultural area in Section 17 (1) (b) are construed as perfectly over-lapping.It would follow from the foregoing discussion that only such lands as are being used for growing crops or as grove or as pasture land may be acquired under the Act. It is alleged in the writ petition that the land in dispute is a part of kothi Babu Wali and was not used for agricultural purposes. The petition mentions the old number of the plot which was 5199. The new number of the plot is 4635A The State Government has filed a counter-affidavit. They have assumed that the petition refers to the plot now given the new number 5199. The counter-affidavit does not deal with the disputed plot now numbered 4635A. But the description of the plot in dispute given in the petition leaves no room for doubt about the identity of the plot. It is strange that the counter-affidavit did not squarely deal with the allegations in the petition. The appellants allegation that the land in dispute is non-agricultural land and forms part of a residential kothi remains unanswered in the counter-affidavit.In the suit the respondents case was that Bateshwar Dayal, their predecessor-in-interest, had planted a grove on the land in depute. The trial court had appointed a commissioner for finding out whether there stood a grove on the land in dispute. On October 16, 1956, the Commissioner submitted his report to the trial court. It appears from his report that about a half of the plot towards the western side was then "quite vacant" On the western boundary of the plot there, stood two sheesham and three mango trees, on the northern boundary of the plot there were four guava trees, one plum tree and a thorny tree. In the eastern half of the plot there were about 18 or 19 "scattered guava trees". Trees standing on the boundary of the plot will not prevent the use of the land for a purpose other than grove. The western half could be used for any other purpose. In the eastern half the 18 or 19 "scattered" guava trees could apparently not prevent the use of the lend for any other purpose. The report of the Commissioner would not show that the land in dispute was a grove within the meaning of S. 2 (6) of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. As the appellants had given the old number of the plot in their petition, the Government did not reply to the allegations in the petition. Accordingly, it is not possible to express any concluded opinion on the question whether the land in dispute was an "agricultural area" on the date specified under S. 2 (1) and was being used for horticulture. The issue should now be decided afresh by the appropriate authority under the Act.