2018 (4) TMI 1665 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction of the Defendant-Corporation - recovery of the arrears of rent - whether the land was vested with the Government - Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 - Held that - Undisputedly the lease of the land was entered into between the parties prior to the 1950 Act coming into force. The Act of 1950 is not applicable to the land which was being used for non agricultural purposes prior to 1950. Land as defined in Section 3 (14) of the 1950 Act means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture horticulture or animal husbandry. Moreover there is also a declaration Under Section 143 of the 1950 Act that the land was being used for non agricultural purposes. The said order Under Section 143 passed by the SDO Bijnor on 20.01.1972 was on the basis of a report submitted by the Tehsildar made on 17.12.1970 - the land did not vest in the Government under the 1950 Act. We are not in agreement with the findings of the High Court regarding the vesting of the land in the Government under the 1950 Act due to which the Plaintiffs were held disentitled for any compensation. The land owners may resort to any remedy available to them for payment of compensation to which they are entitled to - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Substitution of Plaintiff
2. Eviction and Recovery of Arrears of Rent
3. Vesting of Land under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971
4. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
5. Entitlement to Compensation

Detailed Analysis:

1. Substitution of Plaintiff
I.A. No. 131233 of 2013 was an application for substitution filed by Gaurav Aseem Avtej, allowed on 08.03.2018, due to the death of the first Plaintiff, Sh. Vinod Chandra Gupta, on 12.11.2010. The substitution was based on a sale deed executed on 29.11.2004 by the first Plaintiff.

2. Eviction and Recovery of Arrears of Rent
Suit No. 212 of 1981 was initiated by Sh. Vinod Chandra Gupta and his mother Smt. Prakashwati for the eviction of the Defendant-Corporation and recovery of arrears of rent. The Trial Court directed the Defendant-Corporation to pay ? 1700/- towards arrears of rent but refused to decree the eviction. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, ordering eviction. However, the High Court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit and leading to the present appeals.

3. Vesting of Land under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971
The core issue was whether the land vested in the State Government under the 1971 Act. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that only the leasehold interest vested in the Government. In contrast, the High Court held that the land itself vested in the Government. The Supreme Court examined the 1971 Act, particularly Section 2(h)(vi) and Section 3, and concluded that the land, being held or occupied for factory purposes, vested in the Government on the appointed day, 03.07.1971. The interpretation emphasized that the term "held" includes both ownership and legal possession, thus encompassing the land leased to the sugar factory.

4. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
The High Court had held that the Plaintiffs lost their rights under the 1950 Act due to a lease executed in violation of Section 156, making the transaction void under Section 167. However, the Supreme Court found that the 1950 Act was not applicable to land used for non-agricultural purposes before its enactment. The land in question was declared non-agricultural under Section 143 by the S.D.O. Bijnor on 20.01.1972, based on a report from 17.12.1970. Therefore, the land did not vest in the Government under the 1950 Act.

5. Entitlement to Compensation
The High Court had denied compensation to the Plaintiffs, citing the void nature of the lease under the 1950 Act. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the 1950 Act did not apply to the land used for non-agricultural purposes before its enactment. Consequently, the Plaintiffs were entitled to seek compensation for the land vested under the 1971 Act.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the land vested in the State Government under the 1971 Act, and the Plaintiffs were entitled to seek compensation. The 1950 Act was deemed inapplicable to the land in question, and the substitution of the Plaintiff was upheld.