1961 (8) TMI 58 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the respondent's right to receive an annual allowance.
2. Interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, in relation to the respondent's allowance.
3. The distinction between the allowance for 166 mahals and the remission of revenue for 12 mahals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Respondent's Right to Receive an Annual Allowance:
The respondent, a descendant of Harnarain Singh, claimed the right to receive an annual allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0, which was granted as compensation for the relinquishment of rights over 166 mahals in the pargana "Syudpore Bhettree." This allowance was established through a historical arrangement dating back to 1838, following a compromise with the Government. The High Court upheld this right, stating that the allowance was not an "estate" within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, and therefore, the right to receive the allowance was not extinguished by the Act.

2. Interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951:
The Act aimed to abolish the zamindari system and acquire the rights, titles, and interests of intermediaries. Section 6(b) of the Act specifically provided that all grants and confirmations of title to land or any right or privilege in respect of such land or its land revenue would determine upon vesting in the State. The High Court interpreted that this provision did not apply to the respondent's allowance, as it was not an interest in land or land revenue but compensation for relinquishing such rights.

3. Distinction Between the Allowance for 166 Mahals and the Remission of Revenue for 12 Mahals:
The Supreme Court made a clear distinction between the allowance related to 166 mahals and the remission of revenue for 12 mahals. The allowance for 166 mahals was a fixed amount granted as consideration for the relinquishment of rights and was not directly tied to the land revenue or the land itself. Therefore, it did not fall under the provisions of the Act and was not extinguished. However, the remission of revenue for 12 mahals was directly related to the land revenue, and upon the vesting of these estates in the State, the right to remission could not be converted into a positive right to receive the amount thereof. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to receive the remission amount for the 12 mahals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the respondent's entitlement to the annual allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0 for the 166 mahals but reversed the decision concerning the remission of revenue for the 12 mahals. The Court concluded that the allowance was not an estate or interest in land or land revenue and thus not affected by the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. However, the remission related to the 12 mahals was extinguished by the Act, and the respondent was not entitled to receive it.

Judgment:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to the modification that the respondent's petition regarding the remission of land revenue for the 12 mahals was dismissed, while the allowance for 166 mahals was confirmed.