Summary
Original vendors sought restoration of land because their purchaser later exchanged it without statutory permission. The Court held that the 1974 exchange was governed by the pre-amendment regime, under which the prescribed ejectment suit had to be brought within six years; none was filed. Independently, a defect in the later exchange could not undo the genuine 1973 sale or restore the vendors’ extinguished rights. Their appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- What consequences followed an unpermitted exchange executed before the 1981 statutory change.
- Whether original vendors could reclaim land by relying on a defect in a later transaction between other owners.
Provisions considered
- Sections 161, 166 and 167, before and after the amendment effective 3 June 1981, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950The Court distinguished the earlier ejectment-based consequences from the later automatic-vesting regime and applied the law governing the 1974 transaction. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24)
- Rule 338 and Appendix III, entries 19 and 20, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952The prescribed ejectment proceedings had a six-year period from the illegal transfer, which expired without suit before the later amendment. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24)
Held
- The unpermitted 1974 exchange fell under the pre-amendment scheme. Its consequences required prescribed proceedings within the six-year period, which expired in March 1980 without a suit. The amendment effective in June 1981 did not apply to this case. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24)
- The genuine registered 1973 sale transferred the original vendors’ ownership and possession. Failure to obtain mutation or assert bhumidhari rights did not by itself nullify the purchaser’s title in the absence of any contrary provision. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 24)
- The sale and subsequent exchange were distinct transactions. Whatever consequences attached to the exchange, its defect conferred no locus or preferential restoration right on the former vendors and did not invalidate their earlier sale for consideration. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
The appeals were dismissed without costs. The High Court’s conclusions denying the original vendors restoration of rights on the basis of the later exchange defect were left undisturbed. Pending applications were disposed of.