Ejectment

Dr. Nand Kishor

Associate Professor
Law
University of Lucknow
Lucknow

Disclaimer: This content is solely for the purpose of e-learning by students and any
commercial use is not permitted. The author does not claim originality of the
content and it is based on the following references

1
 Form for uploading e-content on Higher Education website

Content Creator Name Dr. Nand Kishor

Stream Name Law

Subject Name Land Law

Topic Name Ejectment

Course (Class) LL.B 3 year

Year/Semester 5th semester

No. of Pages 7

University Name University of Lucknow

Content Language English

Content Type Text

(Notes / PPT / Text)
Search Keywords
(Comma Separated)

The following form has to be sent in word format for each e-content that is being sent for
uploading

2
 Ejectment

Ejectment means dispossession by form of Law. It means expulsion by the

assertion of paramount little and by process of law.
Ejectment of tenure holders from the land of Public Utility:
Section 212 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
provides for the ejectment of persons from Land of public utility. Such person may
be either a tenure holder (bhumidhar or asami) or a trespasser [Gram Sabha vs
Babunandan, 1962 R.D. 24]. Following conditions must be fulfilled u/s 212.
1. The person must have been admitted as a tenure-holder or grove-holder or he
was an intermediary who had planted a groove upon the land or brought the
land under his own cultivation.
2. Such admission, cultivation or plantation upon land was made on or after 8th
August 1946 (Date of passing resolution regarding Zamindari Abolition in
U.P.)
3. The admission, cultivation or plantation must have been recorded as public
utility land e.g., pasture land, cremation or burial ground, land or pond,
pathway of Khalihan.
4. The suit for ejectment must have been filed within 10 years from the date of
vesting.
All above four conditions must be full filled for the application Section 212
Ejectment suit must be filed within the limitation period of ten years from the date
of vesting. The limitation period expired On July 1, 1962. Therefore section 212 is
now become historical.

3
 In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Smt Sarjoo Devi (AIR 1977 S.C.2196; 1977 R.D.
210 (SC)) The Supreme Court held that the third condition was lacking therefore
respondent was not liable to ejectment even if cultivated the land after 8th August,
1946.
The suit land in the Basti district was neither recorded as pasture land nor it
was proved that it was common customary pasture land. The land was recorded as
"Parti fit for cultivation." The suit land was let out to suit Smt Sarjoo Devi by the
intermediaries in May 1950 for growing crops. She brought a substantial portion
thereof under cultivation, paid rent to intermediaries in 1951 and in 1952, and had
been regularly paying land revenue to the State She was holding land as a
hereditary tenant on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. Therefore
she became sirdar of the land after the abolition of Zamindari,
It was held that as land was paste and was not one specified in the section,
therefore respondent cannot be ejected even if she was admitted as a tenure holder
after 8th August 1946
Procedure for Ejectment: Generally a suit for the ejectment must be filed by
the Gram Sabha in the Revenue Court of Collector. But Section 212-A provide
summary procedure for ejectment of persons from land of public utility. Under
Section 212-A, an application for ejectment may be made to the collector by the
Chairman, or Secretary i.e. lekhpal or any member of the Land Management
Committee Collector after satisfaction of the contents of application that there are
sufficient ground for proceeding, the shall give a notice to the person against
whom the application is directed to show cause why an order of ejectment be not
made against him. In the case of no contest, then collector could make an order of
ejectment.
But if a contest is raised by filling objections, then Collector after hearing the
parties, has to satisfy himself that the person was admitted as a tenure or grove
4
holder of the land or he was an intermediary who himself brought the land under
cultivation or planted grove, On or after August 8, 1946. The tenure in every case
shall get compensation, whether he is ejected under Sections 212 or 212-A.
If no order for payment of compensation is made them the ejectment order is void.
In Gram Sabha v.Ram Raj Singh and others (1968, R.D. 281) (S.C.); AIR 1968
S.C. 1073)
Respondents were bhumidhars and Sinders of some plots. The Gram Sabha
filed an application before the Sub-Divisional officer (Who had been vested with
the power of collector) under section 212-A of the Act for dispossession of
respondents and granted possession of the land to the Gram Sabha, and no order
for compensation was made.
The order of Sub-Divisional Office was challenged as invalid and, on that
basis, possession was claimed from the Gram Sabha under Section 209 of the Act,
alleging that the possession of the applicant was without any Legal right.
The Allahabad High Court held that the Order purporting to be under 212-A. of the
Act was not valid, because it did not direct the payment of compensation as
required by section 212-A(6) of the Act.
The appellant came up to the Supreme Court against the judgment by the
special leave. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld decision of the
High Court. Supreme Court delivering the judgment observed that "an order under
the provision must first direct the payment of compensation to the person in
possession and direction for ejectment of the person in possession must be made
effective only thereafter i.e. after the compensation has been paid. The order to be
made must, therefore, contain as a condition precedent to ejectment the payment of
compensation. If no payment of compensation is ordered, then the order made
would not be an order under the provisions of Law. Hence the order not being
under this provision the dispossession of the respondents in pursuance of that
5
Order was clearly illegal and the respondents had the right to institute the suit for
obtaining possession u/s 209 of the Act.
The compensation payable on ejectment shall be equal to the cost of
improvement, if any, made upon the land and one year's rent computed at
hereditary rates. If he has become bhumidhar after depositing ten times of the land
revenue he would be entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him less the
amount which might have been paid (Rule 179).
Comparisons of Sections 212 and 212-A:
There are various points of similarities between the two sections. They relate
to the same lands of public utility and deal with ejectment of occupants of such
lands. It is the same officer before whom a suit could be fixed under section 212
who is to decree the case under section 212-A. Following distinctions are given
below.
1- A regular suit under section 212 has to be filed, while other section 212-A
simple application for eviction is to be made.
2- Under section 212 the suit has to be filed by the Gram-Sabha, while under
section 212-A the application may be made by the Chairman, or Secretary or
any member of the Land Management Committee.
3- Under Section 212 an appeal shall lie to the commissioner against the decision
of the collector, and a second appeal to the Board of Revenue whereas no
appeal or revision lies in case of ejectment under section 212-A.
4- Provisions of Section 212-A are only in addition to and not in derogation of
the powers vested in Gram Sabha under section 212. If a suit is dismissed
under section 212 then no application made under section 212-A because
decision u/s 212 is binding on the application made under section 212 A.
But if an application u/s 212-A has failed, and then the subsequent suit u/s 212
will not be barred. The rule of res-judicata shall not be applicable. In Parmeshwar
6
Dubey v. Gram Sabha, Chak Alam 1961 R.D. 95: 1961 A.L.J. (R)36 Sabhapati of
Chak Alam Gram Sabha instituted a suit under Section 212 of the Act for
ejectment, alleging that the plots in dispute constituted a pond and were being used
for irrigation of neighboring plots but respondent had taken unlawful possession
and was liable to ejectment.
Parmeshwar Dubey contested, alleging that a case under Section 212-A had
already been faught and decided on 22-06-1956 in his favor and hence the present
suit was not maintainable u/s Section-212. The trial court, and the Additional
commissioner in appeal, held the defendant liable to ejected as the suit was not
barred by res-judicat. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal.

• UTTAR PRADESH LAND LAWS – Dr. R.R. Maurya

• UTTAR PRADESH REVENUE CODE 2006 – Dr. C.P. Singh
• UTTAR PRADESH REVENUE CODE 2006 DETAILED
DISCUSSION ALONG WITH REVENUE CODE RULES
2016 – Prof. R.N. Chowdhary