c MAHARAJ SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS November 2, 1976 [H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.] U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 117-Scope of-State vests lands in Gaon Sabha-Suit for ejectment-Gaon Sabha did ••~t appeal-State-If had locus standi.
Words & phrases-Vest-Person aggrie1·ed-Appurte11a11ce-Mea11i11g 'fl By virtue of s. 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the right, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate includ- ing hats, bazars and me/as stood terminated and vested absolutely in the State. Section 9 provides that all wells, trees in abadi and all buildings situate within the limits of an Estate, belonging to an intermediary, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary and the site of the buildings which is appurtenant thereto, shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Gov- ernment. Section 117 ( 1) empowers the State Government to vest
lands in Gaon Sabhas or other local authorities. Under s. 117(6) the State Govern- ment has power to resume from a Gaon Sabha the lands vested in it. By a notification under s. 117(1) the State Government vested the land in the village in the Gaon Sabha.
On the estate in dispute, the defendant who was the quondam zamindar, had been conducting a cattle fair. The estate had on it, among others, a few struc- tures. The plaintiffs' (the State and the Gaon Sabha) suit for ejectment of the defendant from the estate was dismissed by the trial court. Th~ Gaon Sabha,
however, did not appeal; but the State went in appeal to the High Court as 'a person aggrieved'. The Rish Court negatived the defendant's contentions that as a result of the notification under s. 117 ( 1) the land having vested in the Gaon Sabha, the State Government had no locus standi and that it was not a person aggrieved, but allowed the defendant to keep all the structures and
a space of 5 yards running round each building. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (1) The State has title to sustain the action in ejectment. The Government, despite vesting the estates in Gaon Sabhas has, and continues to have, a constant hold on these estates, when it chooses, to ta\ce away what it had given possession of to a Gaon Sabha. This is plainly 'present legal interest' in the Government and a sort of precarium
te11a11s in the Sabha. [1082 D; 1079 F-G] (a) The Act contemplates taking over of all zamindari rights as part of land reform. Instead of centralising management of all estates ~t State level, the Act gives an enabling power to make over these states to Gaon Sabhas. Apart from management, no power is expressly vested in the Sabhas to dispose of the estates absolntely. If the State thinks fit to amend or cancel the earlier vesting declaration or notification it can totally deprive the Sabha of, and resume from it, any estate. The vesting in the State was absolute but the vesting in the
Sabha was limited to possession and management subject to divestiture by Government. Such a construction of vesting in two different senses in the· same section is sound because the word 'vest' has many meanings. The sense of the situation suggests that in s. 117 ( 1) 'vested in the State' carries a plenary conno- tation, while 'shall vest in the Gaon Sabha' imports a qualified disposition con- fined to the right to full possession and enjoyment so long as it lasts.
To postulate vesting of absolute title in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of the declara- tion under s. 117(1) is to stultify s. 117(6). [1081 A-C; F-G] '; ' .. MAHARAJ SINGH v. UTTAR PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, 1.)
(b) The State is 'a person aggrieved'. He, who has a proprietary rii;ht, which has beei or is threatened by violation, is an 'aggrieved person'. The nght to a remedy apart, a larger circle of persons can move the court for the pro- tection of defence or enforcement of a civil right or to ward off or claim com- pensation for a civil wrong, even if they are not proprietarily or pcrsonall v Jinked with the cause of ·action. The nexus between the /is and the plaintiff need not necessarily be personal.
A person aggrieved is an expression which has expanded with the larger urgencies and felt necessities of our time. [1082 E-F] (c) The amplitude of 'legal grievance' has broadened with social compul- sions.
The State undertakes today activities whose beneficiaries may be the genernl community even though the legal right to the undertaking may not vest in the community. The State starts welfare projects whose effective irnplemen- tatio~ may call for collective action from the protected group or any member of thei!t.
Test suits, class actions and representative litigation are the beginning and the horizon is expanding with persons' and organisations not personally injured but vicariously concernecf oeing entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for.-edressal of actual or imminent wrongs . .(1083 A-CJ Dhabolkar [1976J 1 S.C.R. 306 followed.
'Locus standi' has a larger ambit in current legal semantics than the accepted, individualistic jmisprudence of old. Therefore, the State, in the present case. is entitled to appeal under s. 96 of the Ccxle of Civil Procedure. [I 084 DJ (2) Where a wrong against community interest is done, 'no locus standi' will not always be a plea to non-suit an interested public body chasing the wrong- doer in court. In the instant case the Government is the 'aggrieved person'. Its
right of resumption from the Gaon Sabha, meant to be exercised in public interest will be seriously jeopardised if the estate slips into the hands of a tres- passer. The estate belonged to the State, is vested in the Gaon Sabha for com- munity benefit, is controlled by the State through directions to the Land Manage- ment Committee and is liable to be divested. The wholesome object of the legislature of cautiously decentralised vesting of estates in loc~·l 5elf-governing units will be frustrated, if the State is to be a helpless spectator of its purposeful bounty being wasted or lost. [1083 H; 1084 A-BJ
(3 )(a) The touchstone of 'appurtenance' is dependence of the building on what appertains to it for its use as a building. Obviously the hat, bazar, or me/a is not an appurtenance to the building.
Even if the buildings were used and enjoyed in the past with the whole stretch of vacant space for a hat or mela, the land is not aopurtenant to the principal subject granted by s. 9,
namely, buildings. [1085 GJ (b) The larger objective of s. 9 is to settle with the former only such land as is strictly appurtenant to buildings, all the rest State for implementation of the agrarian reform policy. [1084 G] intermediary
going to the (c) The large open spaces cannot be regarded as appurtenant to the terraces, stands and structures. What a integral is not necessarily appurtrnant. A position of subprdination, sometlting incidental or ancillary or dependent is Implied in appurtenance.
Th3' much of space required for the use of the structures as such has been excluded by the High Court itself. Bevond that may or may not be gecessary for the hat or mela but not for the enjoyment of the chabutras as such. [1085
B-Cl ( d) 'Appurtenance' in relation to a dwelling, includes all land occupied therewith and used for the purroses thereof. The word 'appurtenances' has a distinct and definite meaning.
Prima facie it imports nothing more than what is strictly appertaining to the subject-matter of the devise or grant. What is necessary for the enjoyment and has been used for the purpose of the building, such as easement, alone will be appurtenant. The word 'appurtenance<' include' all the incorporeal hereditaments attached to the land granted or demised .. such as rights of wav, but does not include lands in addition to that granted. [1086 D-EJ
· (e) What the High Court has granted viz., 5 yards of surrounding space is sound in law. [I 086 HJ c [ 1977] 1 s.c.R. CIVIL APPELLAT& JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1976 . c
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 23-5-1975 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 392/ 64. Shanti Bhushan, V. P. Goel and Subodh Markendeya, for the
Appellant. L. N. Sinha, Solicitor-General of India and 0. P. Rana, for the Respondent No. 1. Bal Kishan Gaur and Amlan Ghosh, for Respondent No. 2. • • Yogeshwar Prasad and Rani Arora, for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-Two principal submissions, whose implications perhaps are of profound moment and have public impact, have been, at wide-ranging length, urged in this appeal by certificate, by Shri Shanti Bhushan, for the appellant/defendant and, with effective bre- vity, controverted by the Solicitor General, for respondent/1st plain- tiff.
The two focal points of the controversy are : (a) Is the appeal to the High Court by the State/1st plaintiff at all competent, entitle- ment as a 'party aggrieved' being absent, having regard to the pro- visions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951) (for short, the Act) ?; and (b) Is it sound to conceptualise 'area appurtenant to buildings' in s. 9 of the Act so narrowly as has been done by the High Court ? There were two plaintiffs-the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Gaon Sabha of Bedpura claiming common put alternative reliefs.
The suit was for injunction or ejectment, on title, of the sole defendant who was the quondam zamindar of the 'estate' which is the ·subject matter of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit whereupon the 2nd plaintiff dropped out of the litigation, as it were, and the State alone pursued the matter by way of appeal against the decree. The High Court partially allow- ed the appeal and the aggrieved defendant is the appellant before us. An expose of the facts may now be given· to the extent necessary for explaining the setting of the contention between the parties. 'J;he State of Uttar Pradesh extinguished all zamindari estates by the Act and implemented a scheme of settlement or lands with intermediaries, tenants and others by first vesting all estates in the siate and empower- ing it to vest, divest and re-vest from time to time according to flexible needs and ad hoc requirements, the same estate's in Gaon Sabhas or other local authorities.
Settlement of trees, buildings and other specified items in the intermediaries was also part of the agrarian reform. A skeletal picture of the legislation may now be projected. But, before that, a short sketch of the actual dispute may illumine the further discussion.
The suit lands were part of an estate owned and possessed by the defendant-zamindarini. The statutory consequence of the abolition of all zamindaris by force of s. 4 is spelt out in s. 6, to wit, the i •
l\IAHARAJ SINGH v. UTTAR PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.) cesser of the ownership of the zamindar and vesting of title and posses- sion in ihe State. By a notification under s. 11 7 (1) of the Act the
area of lands was vested by the State in the 2nd plaintiff Gaon Sabha. The legislative nullification notwithstanding, the defendant who had been conducting a lucrative bi-weekly cattle fair, the best in the dis- trict, persisted in this profitable adventure strengthened by s. 9 of the Act which settles in the intermediary all building's and area appurtenant thereto. This resulted in possessory disputes between the Gaon Sabha and the defendant-proceedings under s. 145 upholding the latter's possession and the present suit for declaration of title· and con·se- quential injunction or ejectment.
Tfie estate, which is the· site of the rural cattle market, has a large nullJ.ber of trees on it, a temple in one plot, a (veterinary ) clinic in another and quite a number of cattle stands and other auxilliary struc- tures which are facilities for the bovine display and transaction of business.
Taking advantage of the provisions of the Act, the defen- dant successfully claimed before the High Court that the trees and the two plots with the shrine and the oushadhalaya should be deemed to have been settled with her. Her ambitious demand, based on some provisions which we will presently Xcray more carefully, was that the entire estate with all the buildings thereon wa·s enjoyed as a unum quid and the vacant lands were as much necessary for the meaningful run- ning of the cattle fair as the structures themselves.
To dissect and detach the buildings from the vacant spaces was to destroy the func- . tional wholeness of the service rendered. In short, the large inter- vening areas surrounding the
ohabutras and other edifices were essential adjuncts or appurtenant lands which, together in thejr origi- nal entirety, should be settled under s. 9 of the Act with the erstwhile intermediary viz., the defendant. The High Court declined to go the whole hog with the defendant but granted the plea to the limited degree of giving all the structures and a space of 5 yards running round each 'building'.
In the view of the Court hats, bazars, and me/as could not be held by a private owner under the scheme of the Act and reliance on the conduct of the cattle market as an indicator of 'appurtenant' area was, therefore, impermissible.
The suit was decreed pro tanto. The Gaon Sabha, when defeated in the trial Court, discreetly stepped out of the risks•of an appeai but the Government, first plain- tiff,. claiming to. be gravely aggrieved, challenged the dismissal of the suit ahd was faced with the plea that the land having vested in the Gaon Sabha, on the issue of the notification under s. 11 7 ( l) of the Act, the State had no surviving interest in the property and', therefore, forfeited the position of a 'person aggrieved', who alone could compe- tently appeal against a decree.
This contention, negatived by the High Court, has been reiterated before us with resourceful embellish- ments and that, logically, is the first question of law falling for our decision and is the piece de resistance,
if we may say so, in this appeal. If the 1st plaintiff's entire interests, by subsequent plenary vesting in the 2nd plaintiff, have perished, the former cannot, as of right, appeal under s. 96 C.P.C. Survival after death is unknown to c
c (1977] 1 s.c.R. real property law and suits, without at \east apprehended miury, are beyond the ken of the procedural law. To put it in a nutsl!el;, has the State current intere·st in the estate, sufficient to sustain an appeal ? The anatomy of the Act, so far as this dispute is concerned, needs to be· set out and alongside thereof, the exercises in statutory construc- tion necessary to resolve the two legal dispute·s.
The Act had for its primary object, as testified by its Preamble, the extinction of inter- mediary rights viz., zamindaris and the like. The goal of the legisla- tion must make its presence felt while the judicial choice of meanings of words of ambiguous import or plurality of significations is made. Section 4 is the foundational provision, the very title deed of the Sta~~ and it runs, to read :
"s. 4. Vesting of estates in the State.- ( 1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by notification, declare that, as from a date to be specified, all estate situate in the Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the begin- ning of the date so specified (herinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all en- cumbrances.
(2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considers necessary, to issue, from time to time, the notifica- tion referred to in sub-section ( 1) in respect only of such area or areas as may be specified and all the provisions of sub-section ( 1), shall be applicable to and in the case of every such notification."
Section 6 sets out the legal consequences of such vesting more speci- fically. We may extract the provision : ''6. Consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State.- When the notification under section 4 has been published · in the Gazet_te then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time
being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the begin- ing of the date of vesting, ensue in the" area to which the notification relates, namely-
(a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries- (i) in every estate in such area including land ( culti- vable or barren), grove-land, forests whether within or outside village boundaries, trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries, tanks, ponds, water-chan- nels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites, hats, bazars and melas other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which
Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply, and MAHARAJ SINGH v. UTTAR PRADESH· (Krishna Iyer, .T.) (i~) in all sub-soil in such estate's including rights, if any in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not;
shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all ~ncumbrances; .j: Reading the two sister sections together, certain clear conclusions emerge. Emphatically, three things happened on the coming into
force of the Act. By virtue of ·s. 4 the right, title and interest of all in~ime<liaries in every estate, including lwts, bazars and me/as, stood terminated. Secondly, this whole bundle of interests came to be vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, the quality of the vesting being •absolute.
Thirdly, one and only one species of property in lzats, bazars and me/as was expressly exclu<led from the total vesting of estates in the State, viz., such as had been held on lands to which s. 18 (1) la) to ( c) applied.
Section 9, at this stage, needs to be read since it is geared to the nationalisation of zamindaris by providing for settlement, under the State, of some kinds of landed interests in existing owners or occupiers.
Section 9 states : "Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings to be settled with the existing owners or occupiers thereof.- All wells, trees in abadi, and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate, belonging to or held by an inter- mediary or tenant or other person, whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary, tenant or persons, as the case may be, and
the site· of the wells or the buildings which are appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be pres- cribed "
A close-up of this section is called for since the basic plank of the defendant'& case is the claim to the whole set of plots as building and appurtenant area of land statutorily settled ~ith her. If she is such a settlee, the substantive nierit of the plaintiff's title fails. We will
examine this aspect after tt survey of the sections relevant to the locus standi of the State is done . c So we shift to Chapter VII which relates to Gaon Sabhas vesting by the State of resumed estates in them and the limitations and other conditions to which it is subject.
Attributed legal personality by s.3, the Gaon Sabhas are bodies corporate which, under th~ various provisions of Chapter VII, have been invested with legal viability right to own and hold property, to transfer and otherwise deal with movables and immovables and manage their landed assets through the executive
agency of Land Management Committees. This comprehensive proprietary personality of the Sabha is indisputable but unhelpful for our purpose. The controversy before us comes into focus when we read s. 11 7 ( 1), (2) and (6), all the limbs being taken as belonging to•a legally living corporate body. Section 117, els. (1) and (2), provide: "117. Vesting of certain land:; etc., in Gaon Shabhas
and other local authorities.- ( 1) At any time after the publication of the notification· referred to in Section 4, the State Government may, by general or special order to be published in. the manner
prescribed, declare that as from a date to be specified in th:is behalf, all or any of the following things, namely- • • (v) hats, bazafS! and melas except hats, bazars, and melas held on land to which the provisions of clauses (a}
to (c) of sub-section (1) of ~ectirn1 18 apply or on sites and areas referred to in section 9, and which had v~sted in the State under this Act shall vest in the Gaon Sabhas or and other local authoritv established
tor the whole or part of the village in which the said things are situate, or partly in one such local authority (includ- ing a Gaon Sabha) and partly in another: Provided that it shall be lawful for the State Gov•.wn-
ment to ;nake the declaration aforesaid subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the noti- fication. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or ·
in any other law for the time being in force, the State Government may, by general or special order to be pub- lished in the manner prescribed in the Gazette, declare that as from a date to be specified in this behalf, all or any of the thmgs specified in clauses (i) to (vi) 0f mh-F.ection (1) which alter their vesting in the State under this Act had
been vested in a Gaon Sabha or any ilther local authority, either under this Act or under section 126 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 \(J.P. Act II of 1959) shall vest in any other ·local authority (including a Gaon Sabha) established for the whnle or part of the village in which the said things are situated."
· · · Section 117 ( 6) injects a precarious does into the system of estates vested in Gaon Sabhas by sub-s. ( 1) and goes on to state: "117(6). The State Government may, at any time, by
general or special order to be. published in the manner prescribed, amend or cancel any declaration or notification made in respect of any of the things aforesaid, whether MAHARAJ SINGH v. UTT AR PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.)
. I 0 79 generally or in the case of any Gaon Sabha or other local auth~ity, and resume such thing and whenever the State Government so resumes any such thing, the Gaon Sabha or other· local authority, as the case may be, shall be entitled to receive and be paid compensation on account only of the development, if any, effected by it in or over that thing: Provided that the State Government may, after
such resumption, make a fresh declaration under sub-section ( 1) or sub-section (2) vesting the thing resumed in the same or any other local authority (including a Gaon Sabha) ••and the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis, apply to such dec-
ljration. Before moving further, we may glance at a group of sections which have more than peripheral impact on the legal equation bet- ween Government and Sabha vis a vis estates vested in the latter by c
the former. Section 119 carves out a power for the State Govern- ment to take away hats, bazars and melas vested in a Gaon Sabha and transfer them to a zilla parishad or other authority.
Sections 122A and 122B create and regulate the Land Management Com- mittee which is to administer the estates vested in the Sabha and s. 126, quite importantly, gives the power to the State Government to issue orders and directions to the Management Committee. Pausing here for an instant, let us look back on the status of
the State which, through its Executive branch, vests a resumed estate in a Gaon Sabha, retaining power, at any time, and without condi- tions or even compensation (save for actual developmental work done), to divest the land so vested and make it over to another like local authority. , In such a situation where the State remains the
legal master with absolute powers' of disposition over the land vested pro tempore in a particular Gaon Sabha, can it be postulated that it has no legal interest in the preservation of that over which it has continuous power of operation, creation and deprivation?
Govern- ment, despite vesting estates in Gaon Sabhas on the wholesome political principle of decentralisation and local self-government, has and continues to have a constant hold on these estates, may be like a brooding: omnipotence descending, when it chooses, to take away what it had giveb. possession of to a Sabha.
This is plainly pre- sent legal interest in Government and a sort of precarium tenans in the Sabha, notwithstanding the illusory expression 'vesting' which may mislead one· into the impression that an
absolute and permanent ownership has been created. An overview of these legal prescriptions makes one sceptical about the statutory ideology of autonomous village self-government since, so far as estates are concerned, these Sabhas have been hand- cuffed and thrown at the mercy or mood of the State Government. The pragmatics of the Act has reduced Gaon Sabhas to obedient c
1 oso. holders, for the nonce, of .the limited bounty of estates vested in them -a formal, fickle, homage to Art. 40 of the Constitution !. Shri Shanti Bhushan did draw our attention to certain cousin statutes and other remotely related provisions but the soul of his sub- mission does not suffer by their omission in the discussion. We pass
on to the spinal issues agitated before us. Locus standi The .estates first vest in the State. The fulfilment of th-: purpose of the Act, the setting in which the corner-stone for the statutory edifice is laid and the categorical language used, especially 'free fro!lf •an encumbrances', leave no doubt in our minds, nor was it disputed before us, that this initial vesting is absolute and inaugurates the scheme of abolition.
The consequence of vesting articulated iry s. 6 only underscore this conclusion. What next ensues, when the State Government, · acting under s.117(1), notifies a further vesting in a Gaon Sabha is the cardinal question.
Does the State retain a residuary legal interest, sufficient to make it a 'person aggrieved', competent to challenge in appeal an adverse decree? And can the State canvas fpr the po'>ition that a
proprietary right persists in it albeit its act of vesting the same estate earlier in a local authority? Does the key word 'vest' connote and denote divergent t11ings in ilie same section and Act vis a vis Govern- ment and the Gaon Sabha? Had drafting skills been better, ·this un- lovely ambiguity could have been avoided.
But courts have no choice but to take the text as it is. Zeroing in on the relevant pro- visions, we are inclined to concur with the High Court. With certi- tude one may assert that the State has that minimal interest to follow the proprietary fortunes of the estate so as to entitle it to take legal action to interdict its getting into alien hands.
The legislative project and the legal engineering visualised by the Act are clear and ilie semantics of the words used in the provisions must bend, if iliey can, to subserve tllem.
To he literal or be blinkered by some rigid canon of construction may be to miss the life of the law itself. Strengili may be derived for this interpretative stand from the observation in a recent jud~ent of this Court(l) "A word can have many meanings.
To find J}ut the exact connotation of a word in a, statute, we must look to the context in which it is used. The context would quite often provide the key to meaning of the word and the sense it
should carry. Its setting would give colour to it and pro- vide a cue to the int<"ntion of the lecisfature in using it. A word, as said by Holmes, is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may
vary !!featlv in colour an<l content acconling to the circum- stances and ilie time in which it is used." (I) Thiru Manickaru & Co. v. The State of,Tamil Nadu. [1977] l S.C.R. 950,
\_ MAHARAJ SINGH v. UTTAR PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.) In the instant case the Act contemplates taking over of all zamindari rights ~s part of land reform. However, instead of centralising
management of all estates at State level, to stimulate local self-govern- ment, the Act gives an enabling power-not obligatory duty-to make over these estates to Gaon Sabhas which, so long as they are in
their hands will look after them· through management committees which will be under the statutory control of Gove~mnent tinder s.126. Apart from management, no power is expressly vested in the Sabhas to dispo~e of the estates absolutely.
The fact that as a bcdy' cor- porate it can own and sell property does not mean that the estates vested in a Sabha can be finally sold away, iw the teeth of the pro- vi:llons striking a contrary note.
For, unde~ s.117(6), if, for any ·reasons of better management or other, the State (Government is but the operational arm of the State and cannot, as contended. be delinked as a separate entity, in this context)-the State thinks fit to :amend or cancel the earlier vesting declaration or notificatiq11, it c::m totally deprive the Sabha of, and resume from it, any estate. This
plenary power to emasculate or extinguish the Sabha's right to the estate is tell-tale. True, this cut-back on the amplitude of the vest- :ing is not an incident of the estate created but is provided for by the Act itself.
Even so, we; have to envision, in terms of realty law, what are the nature and incidents of the interest vested in the Sabha- :full ownership divestible under no circumstances or partial estate with the paramount interest stiU surviving in praesenti in the State? It is reasonable to harmonii<:e the statutory provisions to reach a solution which will be least incongruous with legal rights we are
cognisant of in current jurisprudence. Novelty is not a favoured child of the law. So it 1s right to fix the estate created by s. 117 into familiar moulds if any. Such an approach lends to
the position that the veJSting in the State was absolute but the vesting in the Sabha was limited to possession and management subject to divestiture by Government Is sueh a construction of 'vesting' in two differ~nt
senses in the ~ame section, sound ? Yes. It is, because 'vesting' is a word of slippery import and has many meanings. The context controls the text and the purpose and scheme Project the particular -semantic shade or nuance of meaning.
That is why even definition clauses allow themselves to be modified by contextual compulsions. ·so the sense of the situation suggests that in s.117 ( 1) of the Act 'vested in the State' carries a plenary connotation, while 'shall vest jn the Gaon Sabha' imports a qualified disposition ·confined to the right to full possession and enjoyment so long as it lasts. Lexico-
graphic support is forthcoming, for this meaning. Black's Law Die- c c q tionary gives as the sense of 'to vest' as 'to give an imrnedi~te fixed right of present or future enjoyment, to clothe with possession, to deli- ver full possession of land or of an estate, to give seisin'. Webster's
III International Dictionary gives the meaning as 'to give to a per- son a legally fixed immediate right of present or furture enjoyment'. The High Court has sought some Engilsh judicial
backing(!) for taking liberties with strict and pedantic construction. A ruling of this Court(2) has been aptly pressed into service. There is thus authority for the position that the expression 've~~ is of fluid or flexible content and can if the context so dictates, bear the limited sense of being in possession and enjoyment.
Indeed, to postulate vesting of absolute title in the G:j.on Sabha by virtuee of the declaration under s.117 (1) of the Act is to stultify s.117 ( 6). Not that the legislature cannot create a right to divest what has been
completely vested but that an explanation of the term 'vesting' which will rationalise and integrate the initial vesting and the subsequent resumption is preferable, more plausible and better fulfils the purpose of the Act.
We hold that the State has title to sustain he acion in ejectment. Aside from this stand, it is easy to take the view that the 1st plaintiff is a person. aggrieved and has the competence to carry an appeal against the dismissal of the suit.
Of course, he who has a proprietary right, which has been or is threatened to be violated, is surely an 'aggrieved person'. A legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person.
But the right to a remedy apart, a lar- ger circle of persons can move the court for the protection of defence or enforcement of a civil right or to ward off or claim compensation for a civil wrong, even if they are .not proprietarily or personally linked with the cause of action.
The nexus between the Us and the plaintiff need not necessarily be personal although it has to be more than a wayfarer's allergy to an unpalatable episo<le. 'A person aggrieved' is an expression which has expanded with the larger urgencies and felt necessities of our times.
Processual jurispru- dence is not too jejune to respond to societal changes and challenges: "Law necessarily has to carry within it the impress of the past traditions, the capacity to respond tt> the needs of the present and enough resilience to cope with the d;mands of
. the future. A code of law, especially in the social fields, is not a document for fastidious dialectics; properly drafted and rightly implemented it can be the means of the order-
ing of the life of a people."(3) (I) Richardson ,v. Robertson (1862) 6 LR 75; & .Hiride v. Chorlton (1866) 2 CP 104, 116. (2) Fruit & Vegetable Merchant's Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1957 SC 344.
(3) Address by-Khanna J. at the Birth Centenary of Sir Tei Bahaclur Sapru d/16-10-76 at Allahabad. r MAHARAJ SINGH v. UTT AR PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, !.) I 0 83 The.classical concept of a 'person aggrieved'
is delineated in Re : Sidebotham ex p. Sidebotham (1880 14 Ch.D. 258). But the amplitude of 'legal grievance' has broadened with social com- pulsions. The State undertakes today activities whose benefioiaries
may bci the general community even though the legal right to the undertaking may not vest in the community. The State starts wel- fare projects whose effective implementation may call for collective
action from the protected group or any member of them. New movements like consumerism, new people's organs like harijan or mahila samajams or labour unions, new protective institutions like !~~al aid societies operate on the socio-legal plane, not to beat 'their golden wings in the void' but to intervene on behalf of the weaker classis.
Such burgeoning of collective social action has, in turn, generated gradual processual adaptations. Test ~uits, class actions and representative ~itigation · are the beginning 1nd the horizon is
expending, with persons and organisations not personally injured but vicariously concerned being entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for redressal of actual or imminent wrongs.
In this wider perspective, who is a 'person aggrieved"? Dhabolkar ( 1974 1 SCR 306) gives the updated answer : "The test is whether the words 'perso_n aggrieved' include 'a person who has a genuine grievance because an order
has been made which prejudicially affects his interests'." (p. 315) "American · jurisprudence has recognised, fqr instance, the expanding importance of consumer protection in the econo-
mic system and permitted consumer organisations to initiate or intervene in actions, although by the narrow rule of 'locu~ standi', such a course could not have been justified (see p. 807-New York University Law Review, Vol. 46,
1971). In fact, citizen organisations have recently been compaigning for using legal actions for protection of com- munity interest, broadening the scope of 'standing' in legal proceedings (see p. 403-Boston University Law Review,
Vol.51, 1971). In the well-known c~se of Attorney-General of the Gambia v. Peirra Sarr N. 'lie 1961 A.C. 617), Lord Denning observ- ed about th~ Attorney-General's standing thus :
" …. The words 'person aggrieved' are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, ofl course, a 11).ere busy body who is inter- fering in things which do not concern him; but they do in- clude a person who has a genuine grievance because an
order) has been made which prejudicially affects his interests." (p. 324-325) Where a wrong against community interest is done 'no locus standi' will not always be a plea to non-suit an interested' public body chasing the wrong-doer in court.
In the case before us, Govern- c c [1977) 1 S.C.R. ment, in the spacious sens~ of 'person aggrieved' is comfortably placed. Its right of resumption from the Gaon Sabha, mea9nt to be
exercised in public interest, will be seriously jeopardised if the estate slips into the hands o~ a trespasser. 1'he estate belonged to the State, is vested in the Gaon Sabha for community benefit, is con- trolled by the State through directions to the
Land Management Committee and is liable to be divested without ado any time. The wholesome object of the legislature of cautiously decentralised Yest- ing of estates in local self-governing units will be frustrated, if the State, the watchdog of the whole project, is to be a helpless. spectator of its purposeful bounty being wasted or lost.
It must act, out d fidelity to the goal of the statute and the continuing duty to salvage public property for public use. Long argument is otiose to make out a legal grievance in such a situation of peril and, after all, • the star of processual actions pro bona publico has to be on the ascen- dant in a society where supineness must be substituted by activism if the dynamic rule of law is to fulfil itself.
'Locus standi' has a larger ambit in current legal semantics than the accepted, indivi- dualistic jurisprudence of old. The legal dogmas of the quiet past are no longer' adequate to assail the social injustices of the stormy present.
Therefore, the State, in the present case, is entitled to appeal under s. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Th~ second, and from a practical point of view equally potent ground of defence, is that 'appurtenant' space envelops the whole area around the buildings and the suit for
recovery of possession deserves to be dismised in toto. Let us examine this submission. Section 9 of the Act obligates the State to settle (indeed, it is deemed to be settled) with the intermediary certain items in the estate.
That provision has been set out earlier. The short enquiry is whether the entire land is 'appurtenant' to the buildings. The contention of the defendant flows along these lines. The structures
accepted by the High Court as 'buildings' within the scope of s. 9 were part of a cattle fair complex. Even the mandir and the oushadalya fitted in to the hat total and the integrity of the whole could not be broken up without violating the long years of common enjoyment.
It would also be, a double injury: (a) to the defendant; and (b) to the community. The hat or me/p could not be held by the defendan~ if the land were snatched away and the Government could do nothing on a land without the buildings Jielonging to the defendant.
Maybe there is some sociological substance in the ]Jre- sentation but the broader purpose of the section cannot be sacrificed to the marginal cases like the present. The larger objective is to
settle with the former intermediary only such land as is strictly appurtenant to buildings, all the rest going to the State for imple- mentation of the agrarian reform policy. The key to the solution of the dispute lies in ascertaining whether land on which the cattle fair was being held was appurtenant to the buildings or not on the strength of its use for the hat. The Solicitor General made a two-pronged attack on the defendant's proposition. MAHARAJ SINGH v. UTTAR PRADESH (Krishna Iyer, J.)
Firstly, he argued that hats, bazars and melas were a distinct interest in the seheme of Indian agrestic life and agrarian law. This right had been virtually nationalised by the Act and only the State or the Gaon Sabha, save where s. 18(a) to (c) otherwise provided, could hold a fair.
A ruling by this Court on an ·analogous subject lends support to this contention (See State of Bihar v. Dulhin Shanti Devi : AIR 1967 SC 427 relating to Bihar Land Reforms Act). The heated debate at the bar on this and allied aspects need not detain us further also because of our concurrence with
the second eontention of the Solicitor General that the large open spaces cannot ~regarded as appurtenant to the terraces, stands and structureJS. What is integral is not necesarily appurtenant.
A position of sub- -0rdination, something incidental or ancillary or dependant is implied in a1'rmrtenance. Can we say that the large spaces are subsidiary or ancillary to or inevitably implied in the enjoyment of the buildingis qua buildings? that much of space required for the use of the structures as such has been excluded by the High Court itself.
Beyond that may or may not be necessary for the hat or mela but not for the en- joyment of the chabutras as such. A hundred acres may spread out in front of a club house for various games like golf.
But all these abundant acres are unnecessary for nor incidental to the enjoyment of the house in any reasonable manner. It is confusion to miss the distinction, fine but real. "Appurtenance', in relation to a dwelling, or to a school, college … .includes all land occupied therewith and used for the purpose .thereof (Words and Phrases Legally Defined-Butterworths, 2nd edn). "The word 'appurtenances' has a distinct and definite meaning …. Prima facie it imports nothing more than what is strictly appertaining to the subject-matter of the devise or grant, and which would, in truth, pass without being specially mentioned : Ordinarily, what is necessary for the enjoyment and has been used for the purpose of the building, such as easements,
alone will be appurtenant. Therefore, what is necessary for the enjoyment of the building is alone covered by the expression 'appurtenance'. If some other purpose was being fulfilled
by the building and the lands, it is not possible to contend that those lands are covered by the expression 'appurtenances'. Indeed 'it is settled by the earliest authority, repeated without contradiction to the latest, that fand cannot be appurtenant to land. The word 'appurtenances' rncludes all the incorpore~ hereditaments attached to the land granted or demised, such as rights of way, of common … but it does not in- clude lands in ad~ition to that granted'.
(Words and Phrase, supra). In short, the touchstone of 'appurtenance' is dependence of the building on what appertainJS to it for its use as a building. Obviously, the hat, bazar or mela is not an appurtenance to the building. The
law thus leads to the clear conclusion that even if the buildings were used and enjoyed in the past with the whole stretch of vacant space for a hat or mela, the land is not appurtenant to the principal subject granted by s. 9, viz., buildings.
..1, This conclustion is inevitable, although the contrary argumrnt may be ingenious. What the High Court has granted, viz., 5 yar&; of c surrounding space, is sound in law although based on guess-work in fact The appeal fails and is dismissed but, in the
circu~stances, without costs. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed. l 338SCI/76-GIPF.