AZAD SINGH & OTHERS versus BARKAT ULLAH KHAN & OTHERS

AZAD SINGH & OTHERS versus BARKAT ULLAH KHAN & OTHERS

Thekedars, being in personal cultivation of the land as of 1st May, 1950, under a Theka granted exclusively for that purpose, acquired hereditary tenancy rights under s. 12 of the 1950 Act; subsequent induction of lessees by Zamindars was unlawful, and such lessees did not obtain adhivasi rights under s. 3 of the 1952 Act, as their possession was not lawful.

Parties
Appellant: Azad Singh & Others; Respondent: Barkat Ullah Khan & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 April 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision on Special Leave
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Hereditary Tenancy, Adhivasi Rights, Personal Cultivation, Interpretation of U.p. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Interpretation of U.p. Land Reforms (supplementary) Act, 1952
Land Law Agrarian Reform Hereditary Tenancy Adhivasi Rights Personal Cultivation Interpretation of U.p. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Interpretation of U.p. Land Reforms (supplementary) Act, 1952

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azad Singh & Others

Appellant

Barkat Ullah Khan & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision on Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Thekedars who were granted land for personal cultivation under s. 12 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, became hereditary tenants.
  2. 2 Whether lessees inducted by Zamindars after 1st May, 1950, when Thekedars were already in possession, could acquire rights of adhivasi under s. 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952.

Ratio Decidendi

Thekedars, being in personal cultivation of the land as of 1st May, 1950, under a Theka granted exclusively for that purpose, acquired hereditary tenancy rights under s. 12 of the 1950 Act; subsequent induction of lessees by Zamindars was unlawful, and such lessees did not obtain adhivasi rights under s. 3 of the 1952 Act, as their possession was not lawful.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Decree for possession in favour of the hereditary tenants (plaintiffs).