{"id":210388,"date":"1968-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968"},"modified":"2016-07-20T08:49:48","modified_gmt":"2016-07-20T03:19:48","slug":"gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968","title":{"rendered":"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1073, \t\t  1968 SCR  (2) 856<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Bhargava<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGRAM SABHA, BESAHANI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM RAJ SINGH &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/01\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR 1073\t\t  1968 SCR  (2) 856\n\n\nACT:\n    U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950  (1\nof  1951),  s. 212 A (6)  and  (7)---Sub-Divisional  Officer\nordering  ejectment  under  s. 212 A  (6)  without  awarding\ncompensation--Such  order  is invalid and does\tnot  attract\nprovisions  of\ts.  212 A (7) and Entry at Sl.\tNo.  32B  of\nAppendix III read with Rule 338 of U.P. Zamindari  Abolition\nand  Land Reforms Rules, 1952--Suit challenging\t such  order\ncan be filed under s. 209 of the Act within six years of the\ndate of dispossession.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondents filed a suit under s. 209 of  the\tU.P.\nZamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, in respect of\nfive plots of land claiming to have Sirdari rights in one of\nthem  and Bhumidari rights in the other four.  By this\tsuit\nthey  challenged  the order of\tthe  Sub-Divisional  Officer\npurporting to be under s. 212A (6) of the Act  dispossessing\nthe,  plaintiffs  from\the  aforesaid  plots  and   granting\npossession thereof to the appellant Gram Sabha.\t The Revenue\nCourt framed several issues, the second of which was whether\nthe  respondents had ever acquired Bhumidhari fights in\t the\nfour  plots  in\t which they claimed them.   This  issue\t was\nreferred to the Civil Court which held that, as no suit\t was\nfiled under s. 212A (7) of the Act, within six months of the\ndispossession  as  required by the Entry at S1. No.  32B  of\nAppendix  III read with Rule 338 of the U.P.  Zamindari\t and\nLand  Reforms  Rules  1952,  the   respondents\t rights\t  as\nBhumidars,  if any, stood extinguished.\t On receipt of\tthis\ndecision   on  issue No. 2 the Revenue\tCourt  proceeded  to\ndetermine   the\t claim\tof the\trespondents  in\t respect  of\nSirdari\t rights in one plot and it found that  these  rights\nwere   never   acquired.    It\t therefore   dismissed\t the\nrespondents'  suit  without  recording any  finding  on\t the\nremaining   issues.  The  first appeal\thaving\tfailed,\t the\nrespondents filed a second appeal.  Therein  the High  Court\nheld  that  the\t order\tof  the\t Sub-Divisional\t  Magistrate\npurporting  to be made under s. 212A (6) of the Act was\t not\nvalid because, it did not direct payment of compensation  as\nlaid down in that section. so that the rights as Sirdars and\nBhumidars  were not lost by the respondents.  The  appellant\ncame to this Court by special leave.\n    HELD:  (i)\tThe language of s. 212A (6) makes  it  clear\nthat  the order under that pro,vision must be an  order\t for\nejectment   of\tthe person  in possession of  the  land\t o.n\npayment\t of such compensation as may be prescribed.  In\t the\npresent case no compensation having been ordered to be\tpaid\nthere was no valid order under s. 212A (6). Accordingly\t the\nprovisions  of s. 212A (7) which come into play only when  a\nvalid  order  has been passed under s. 212A  (6),  were\t not\nattracted to the case at all. In such a case a suit  c\/early\nlay against the appellants under s. 209 of the Act and\tsuch\na  suit could be instituted within six years from  the\tdate\nthat  unlawful\tpossession was taken by the  appellant.\t The\npresent\t suit was admittedly brought within that period\t and\nwas therefore not time-barred.\t[859 E860 E]\n    (ii)  The suit in respect of the: plot in which  Sirdari\nrights were claimed by the respondents was dismissed by\t the\ntrial  court on the ground that such rights had\t never\tbeen\nacquired.  This was a finding of fact and the invalidity  of\nthe order under s. 212A did not affect it. [860 F]\n\t      857\n(iii)\t  In  respect of the four plots in which  Bhumidhari\nrights\twere  claimed by the respondents, the case  must  be\nremanded  to  the   trial court\t for  determination  of\t the\nundecided issues relating to them. [859 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 719 of 1966.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nFebruary  18,  1965 of the Allahabad High  Court  in  Second<br \/>\nAppeal No. 4482 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   P.\t Sinha, E. C. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawala,  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>B. C. Misra and H. K. Puri, for respondents Nos.  I and 2.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nBhargava, J. The plaintiffs\/respondents filed a suit No.  25<br \/>\nof  1957  under section 209 of the Uttar  Pradesh  Zamindari<br \/>\nAbolition  and\tLand  Reforms Act, 1950\t (No.\t1  of  1951)<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the act&#8221;), claiming  possession<br \/>\nof  five plots Nos. 729\/2, 725\/2, 723\/2 881\/2 and  330\/3  on<br \/>\nthe  ground  that they were Sirdars of plot  No.  330\/3\t and<br \/>\nBhudars\t of  the remaining plots.  The main  allegation\t was<br \/>\nthat the Chairman of the Gram Samaj of the village, in which<br \/>\nthe plots were situated, had, for certain reasons, filed  an<br \/>\napplication before the Sub-Divisional Officer under  section<br \/>\n212A\tof    the    Act    or\t  dispossession\t   of\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/respondents\ton the ground that these lands\twere<br \/>\nof  public utility and they vested in the Gram\tSamaj.\t The<br \/>\nSub-Divisional\tOfficer, purporting to act under S. 212A  of<br \/>\nthe   Act,  passed  an\torder  for  dispossession   of\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/ respondents and granted possession of the  lands<br \/>\nto   the  appellant,  Gram  Sabha,  Besahani.\tThat   order<br \/>\npurporting to be under s. 212A of the Act was challenged  as<br \/>\ninvalid and, on that basis, possession was claimed from\t the<br \/>\nappellant  under  s.  209  of the  Act,\t alleging  that\t the<br \/>\npossession  of\tthe appellant was without any  legal  right.<br \/>\nThe suit was defended on behalf of the appellant on  various<br \/>\ngrounds\t as a result of which the following ten issues\twere<br \/>\nframed by the trial Court<br \/>\n&#8220;Issue No. 1 : Whether the plaintiffs have right to file the<br \/>\npresent suit ?\n<\/p>\n<p>2  : Whether plaintiffs are Bhumidars of the plots  in\tsuit<br \/>\nexcept plot No. 330\/3 ?\t If so, its effect ?\n<\/p>\n<p>3  :  Whether plaintiff&#8217;s are Sirdars of plot No.  330\/3  in<br \/>\nsuit ?\n<\/p>\n<p>4   :  Whether\tplaintiffs  are\t entitled  to  recovery\t  of<br \/>\npossession over the plots in suit ?\n<\/p>\n<p>5  : Whether the disputed plots are land of  public  utility<br \/>\nand they vest in Gaon Samaj ? If so, its effect ?<br \/>\n8 5 8<br \/>\n6    :Whether the suit is barred by s. 23, C.P.C. ?<br \/>\n7:Whether the suit is barred by section II, C.P.C. ?<br \/>\n8  Whether the disputed plots are culturable land 7<br \/>\nIf so,\tits effect ?\n<\/p>\n<p>9:_  Whether the Court has jurisdiction to the case ?<br \/>\n10   Whether the suit is within time<br \/>\nOf these issues, issue No. 2 was triable exclusively by\t the<br \/>\nCivil Court and, consequently, the Revenue Court, which\t was<br \/>\nseized\tof the suit, referred this issue to the Civil  Court<br \/>\nfor  a\tfinding.   This issue No. 2  arose  because  of\t two<br \/>\npleadings  put forward on behalf of the appellant.  One\t was<br \/>\nthat the plaintiffs\/respondents had never acquired Bhumidari<br \/>\nrights, and the other was that even if it be held that\tthey<br \/>\ndid   possess  any  Bhumidari  rights,\tthose  rights\twere<br \/>\nextinguished  when  the\t respondents  were  dispossessed  in<br \/>\npursuance  of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer  under<br \/>\ns.   212A  of  the  Act and no suit within  six\t months\t was<br \/>\ninstituted by the respondents in accordance with s.  212A(7)<br \/>\nof  the\t Act.\tThe  Civil Court,  without  going  into\t the<br \/>\nquestion whether the respondents had ever acquired Bhumidari<br \/>\nrights,\t decided this issue only on the limited ground\tthat<br \/>\nthe   Bhumidari\t  rights  of  the   respondents\t  had\tbeen<br \/>\nextinguished  as a result of the order under s. 212A of\t the<br \/>\nAct.   On receipt of this finding from the Civil Court,\t the<br \/>\nRevenue\t Court proceeded to record its own finding on  issue<br \/>\nNo.  3 in respect of plot No. 330\/3 which was the only\tplot<br \/>\nin which the respondents had claimed rights as Sirdars.\t  On<br \/>\nthis  issue, the Revenue Court went into the first  question<br \/>\nonly raised on behalf of the appellant and held that it\t was<br \/>\nnot  proved that the respondents had ever been\tadmitted  to<br \/>\ntenancy\t of  this plot of land, so that\t they  never  became<br \/>\nSirdars\t of  this  land.  On this view,\t the  Revenue  Court<br \/>\nconsidered it unnecessary to enter into the question whether<br \/>\nthe  Sirdari rights acquired, if any, had been\textinguished<br \/>\nas a result of the order under s. 212A of the Act.  In\tview<br \/>\nof these findings no decision was recorded on issues Nos. 5-<br \/>\n10,  and the suit was dismissed.  That order was  upheld  by<br \/>\nthe  first  appellate Court. The respondents  then  filed  a<br \/>\nsecond appeal in the AllahabadHigh  Court.   The   High<br \/>\nCourt held that the order purporting to be under s. 212A  of<br \/>\nthe Act was not valid, because it did not direct payment  of<br \/>\ncompensation  as required by s. 212A(6) of the Act, so\tthat<br \/>\nthe  rights as Sirdars and Bhumidars were not lost  &#8216;by\t the<br \/>\nrespondents.   On  this view, the High Court set  aside\t the<br \/>\ndismissal  of the suit by the lower Courts and\tdecreed\t the<br \/>\nsuit  of the respondents.  The appellant has now come up  to<br \/>\nthis Court against this _judgment by special leave.<br \/>\nTwo points have been raised in this appeal on behalf of\t the<br \/>\nappellant before us.  The first point is that the High Court<br \/>\nwas<br \/>\n8 5 9<br \/>\nwrong  in holding that the order passed under S. 2  212A  of<br \/>\nthe Act by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not valid, and  on<br \/>\nthat basis decreeing the suit which was clearly time-barred,<br \/>\nas  it was not instituted within six months of the order  of<br \/>\nejectment  passed  by the Sub-Divisional  Officer  under  S.<br \/>\n212A(6) of the Act.  This ground raised in the appeal has to<br \/>\nbe  rejected, as we are of the opinion that the\t High  Court<br \/>\nwas perfectly correct in holding that the order of the\tSub-<br \/>\nDivisional  Officer under, S. 212A of the Act was not  valid<br \/>\nand,  consequently, the provisions of S. 212A(7) of the\t Act<br \/>\nwere  never  attracted\tto  the\t present  dispute.   Section<br \/>\n212A(6) &amp; (7) are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;212A.  (6)  Where upon the said\thearing\t the<br \/>\n\t      Collector\t is  satisfied that the\t person\t was<br \/>\n\t      admitted as a tenure-holder or -rove-holder of<br \/>\n\t      land  referred to in Section 212 or  being  an<br \/>\n\t      intermediary &#8216;brought such land under his\t own<br \/>\n\t      cultivation  or planted a grove thereon on  or<br \/>\n\t      after the eighth day of August, 1946, he shall<br \/>\n\t      pass an order for ejectment of the person from<br \/>\n\t      the  land on payment of such  compensation  as<br \/>\n\t      may be prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (7)   Where  an order for ejectment  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      passed  under this section, the party  against<br \/>\n\t      whom the order has been passed may institute a<br \/>\n\t      suit&#8217; to establish the right claimed by it but<br \/>\n\t      subject to the results of such suit the  order<br \/>\n\t      passed  under sub-section (4) or (6) shall  be<br \/>\n\t      conclusive.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  language  of S. 212A(6) makes it clear that  the  order<br \/>\nunder  that provision must be an order for ejectment of\t the<br \/>\nperson\tin  possession\tof  the\t land  on  payment  of\tsuch<br \/>\ncompensation as may be prescribed.  This means that an order<br \/>\nunder\tthat   provision  must\tfirst  direct\tpayment\t  of<br \/>\ncompensation  to the person in possession and the  direction<br \/>\nfor  ejectment\tof  the person in possession  must  be\tmade<br \/>\neffective only thereafter, i.e., after the compensation\t has<br \/>\nbeen paid.  The order to be made under this provision of law<br \/>\nmust,  therefore,  contain  as\ta  condition  precedent\t  to<br \/>\nejectment  the\tpayment of compensation.  If no\t payment  of<br \/>\ncompensation  is  ordered, the order made would\t not  be  an<br \/>\norder  under  this provision of law.  In the  present  case,<br \/>\nadmittedly  no\tcompensation was ordered to be paid  in\t the<br \/>\norder purporting to have been passed under s. 212A(6) of the<br \/>\nAct, so that that order cannot be treated as an order  under<br \/>\nthis  provision\t of  law.  The order not  being\t under\tthis<br \/>\nprovision,  the dispossession of the  plaintiffs\/respondents<br \/>\nin  pursuance  of  that order was clearly  illegal  and\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/ respondents had the right to institute the\tsuit<br \/>\nfor obtaining possession under s. 209 of the Act.<br \/>\nIt is true that, in accordance with Entry at SI.  No. 32B of<br \/>\nAppendix  III  read  with Rule 338  of\tthe  U.P.  Zamindari<br \/>\nAbolition<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">860<\/span><br \/>\nand  Land  Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred  to  as<br \/>\n&#8220;the  Rules&#8221;),\ta  suit\t to establish  a  right\t claimed  in<br \/>\naccordance  with s. 212A(7) of the Act has to be  instituted<br \/>\nwithin\tsix  months.  In pursuance of  that  right  claimed,<br \/>\npossession  can\t also  be  claimed; and,  if  the  suit\t for<br \/>\nestablishing the right fails, the right to obtain possession<br \/>\nwould also become time-barred.\tConsequently, under s. 1 8 9\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) of the Act, the person concerned, who falls to institute<br \/>\nthe suit within this period of limitation in accordance with<br \/>\nS.  212A(7) of the Act, would have his interest in the\tland<br \/>\nextinguished.\tThis provision, however, will only apply  to<br \/>\ncases where a valid order has been made under s. 212A of the<br \/>\nAct  and  the  person concerned\t has  been  dispossessed  in<br \/>\npursuance  of such an order.  In the present case,  we\thave<br \/>\nheld  that the order, in pursuance of which the\t respondents<br \/>\nwere dispossessed, was not a valid order under S. 212A(6) of<br \/>\nthe  Act  and  cannot  be held to be  an  order\t under\tthat<br \/>\nprovision of law, so that the respondents in this case\tmust<br \/>\nbe deemed to have been deprived of possession otherwise than<br \/>\nin accordance with law.\t In such a case, a suit clearly\t lay<br \/>\nagainst\t the  appellant under s. 209 of the Act and  such  a<br \/>\nsuit could be instituted within six years from the date that<br \/>\nunlawful possession was taken by the appellant in accordance<br \/>\nwith  Entry at SI.  No. 30 of Appendix III read with R.\t 338<br \/>\nof  the\t Rules.\t  The present suit  was\t admittedly  brought<br \/>\nwithin\tthis  period of limitation and was,  therefore,\t not<br \/>\ntime-barred.   The  High  Court\t was,  therefore,  right  in<br \/>\nholding\t that the claim of the plaintiffs\/respondents  could<br \/>\nnot be defeated on this ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>The second point urged on behalf of the appellant,  however,<br \/>\nappears\t to  us to have great force and\t must  be  accepted.<br \/>\nIt  was urged that, so far as plot No. 330\/3  is  concerned,<br \/>\nthere  was  a finding of fact recorded by the  trial  Court,<br \/>\nwhich  was  upheld by the first appellate  Court,  that\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/respondents never acquired any tenancy or Sirdari<br \/>\nrights\tin this land, so that, irrespective of the  validity<br \/>\nof   the   order   under  s.  212A(6)  of   the\t  Act,\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/respondents&#8217; suit for possession of this plot had<br \/>\nto  be\tdismissed.  The High Court, in decreeing  the  suit,<br \/>\nclearly\t ignored this aspect.  The dismissal of the suit  by<br \/>\nthe  trial  Court which was upheld by  the  first  appellate<br \/>\nCourt in respect of this plot No. 330\/3 was, therefore,\t not<br \/>\nliable\tto be set aside even on the view taken by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt and to that extent it has to be upheld.<br \/>\nWith regard to the remaining four plots in which the respon-<br \/>\ndents were claiming Bhumidari rights, the error committed by<br \/>\nthe High Court is that on the finding recorded by that Court<br \/>\nthere should have been an order of remand to determine other<br \/>\nquestions raised in the suit in respect of those plots.\t One<br \/>\nof  the questions raised, which formed part of issue  No.  2<br \/>\nand was never decided by the Civil Court to which that issue<br \/>\nwas referred, was that the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">861<\/span><br \/>\nrespondents  had never acquired Bhumidari rights at  all  in<br \/>\nthese plots.  That question should have been remitted for  a<br \/>\nfresh decision when the High Court held that the Civil Court<br \/>\nwas wrong in holding that the Bhumidari rights, if possessed<br \/>\nby  the\t respondents in these plots, had  been\textinguished<br \/>\nunder  s.  189\tof the Act in view of  the  failure  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  to\t institute  the suit within  the  period  of<br \/>\nlimitation applicable to a suit under s. 212A(7) of the Act.<br \/>\nFurther, in respect of these plots, other issues which\twere<br \/>\nnot  decided  &#8216;by the Revenue Court also  required  decision<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  suit  in respect of them  could  be  completely<br \/>\ndisposed  of.  Consequently, it is now necessary  to  remand<br \/>\nthe  suit  to  the trial Court for a  fresh  trial  for\t the<br \/>\npurposes indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>As a result, the appeal is allowed and the decree passed  by<br \/>\nthe   High   Court   is\t set  aside.   The   suit   of\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/respondents\twill stand dismissed in\t respect  of<br \/>\nplot No. 33O\/3, while it will go back to the trial Court for<br \/>\na  fresh decision in respect of the remaining four plots  in<br \/>\nthe light of our decision that, in case the respondents\t had<br \/>\nacquired Bhumidari rights, they were not extinguished by any<br \/>\norder under section 212A of the Act.  Parties will be  given<br \/>\nan   opportunity  to  give  evidence  on  the  question\t  of<br \/>\nacquisition\t of\tBhumidari     rights\t by\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/respondents\tan(, on other issues which have\t not<br \/>\nbeen  decided so far.  Costs of this appeal shall abide\t the<br \/>\nresult of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.C.\t\t\t\t   Appeal allowed.\nL3 Sup CI\/68- 11\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">862<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1073, 1968 SCR (2) 856 Author: V Bhargava Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: GRAM SABHA, BESAHANI Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM RAJ SINGH &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/01\/1968 BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA SHAH, J.C. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-20T03:19:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-20T03:19:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2115,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968\",\"name\":\"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-20T03:19:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-20T03:19:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968","datePublished":"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-20T03:19:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968"},"wordCount":2115,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968","name":"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-20T03:19:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gram-sabha-besahani-vs-ram-raj-singh-ors-on-31-january-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gram Sabha, Besahani vs Ram Raj Singh &amp; Ors on 31 January, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210388","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}