Land revenue remission rights end on vesting, but settlement allowances measured by revenue may survive under the Act.

Rights directly attached to an estate or its land revenue are extinguished on vesting under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, but a payment merely quantified by reference to revenue is not, for that reason alone, a right in land or land revenue. The remission relating to the 12 mahals was a 25% remission of assessed land revenue and therefore ceased when the estates vested in the State; that claim failed. By contrast, the annual allowance for the 166 mahals was a settlement payment for extinction of a disputed jagir claim, not a proprietary right in land or revenue, so section 6(b) did not apply; that claim succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's right to receive the allowance treated as remission of land revenue in respect of the 12 mahals of Syudpore Bhettree stood extinguished on vesting under section 4 and clause (b) of section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. (ii) Whether the annual allowance granted as consideration for extinction of the right to the 166 mahals was a right or privilege in respect of land or land revenue so as to be determined under section 6(b) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's right to receive the allowance treated as remission of land revenue in respect of the 12 mahals of Syudpore Bhettree stood extinguished on vesting under section 4 and clause (b) of section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951.

Analysis: The allowance relating to the 12 mahals was found to be a remission of 25% of the land revenue assessed on those villages. Once the estates vested in the State under section 4, the respondent's right in those mahals ceased, and the corresponding right to remission, being a right in respect of land revenue in the estate, could not survive independently. Clause (b) of section 6 was held to cover such a right because it directly related to land revenue in the acquired estate.

Conclusion: The right to remission in respect of the 12 mahals was extinguished and the claim failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the annual allowance granted as consideration for extinction of the right to the 166 mahals was a right or privilege in respect of land or land revenue so as to be determined under section 6(b) of the Act.

Analysis: The allowance for the 166 mahals was not a proprietary interest in land or in land revenue, but a payment granted in settlement of a disputed claim after resumption of the jagir. Its amount was measured by reference to a fraction of the revenue, but that measure did not convert the allowance into a right in land or land revenue. The absence of any compensation machinery for such a claim also supported the view that section 6(b) did not apply to it.

Conclusion: The allowance relating to the 166 mahals was not extinguished under section 6(b) and the claim succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part. The respondent lost the claim relating to remission of land revenue for the 12 mahals, but retained the right to the annual allowance connected with the 166 mahals.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment granted as consideration for surrender or extinction of rights in land is not, merely because it is quantified by reference to land revenue, a right or privilege in respect of land or land revenue within section 6(b); only rights directly attached to the estate or its revenue are extinguished by vesting.

---