State locus standi and appurtenant land narrowly construed in estate vesting and cattle fair land dispute.

Later vesting of an estate in a Gaon Sabha under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act did not extinguish the State's continuing legal interest, because vesting remained subject to State control and resumption powers; the State was therefore a person aggrieved with locus standi to appeal under Section 96 CPC. The term "appurtenant" was construed narrowly to mean land necessary for enjoyment of a building as a building, not open land used for a cattle fair, bazar, or mela. Accordingly, only the limited space immediately around the buildings was treated as protected, while the larger fair ground was not appurtenant land.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State retained sufficient legal interest after vesting of the estate in the Gaon Sabha to maintain an appeal as a person aggrieved; (ii) Whether the land surrounding the buildings used for a cattle fair was appurtenant to the buildings within the meaning of Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Issue (i): Whether the State retained sufficient legal interest after vesting of the estate in the Gaon Sabha to maintain an appeal as a person aggrieved.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act vested estates absolutely in the State in the first instance, and the later vesting in the Gaon Sabha was treated as a limited vesting subject to the State's continuing power of resumption and control. The State thus remained legally interested in the estate and had a genuine grievance where the property was at risk of passing into adverse hands. The expression "person aggrieved" was given a wider processual meaning in the context of public interest and statutory duty.

Conclusion: The State had locus standi and was competent to appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether the land surrounding the buildings used for a cattle fair was appurtenant to the buildings within the meaning of Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Analysis: The expression "appurtenant" was construed in its ordinary legal sense as land necessary for the enjoyment of the building as a building, not land merely convenient for some other use. Large open spaces used for a hat, bazar, or mela were not subsidiary or incidental to the buildings themselves. The statutory object of retaining only strictly appurtenant land with the intermediary did not permit extension of the exemption to the whole fair ground.

Conclusion: The surrounding fair ground was not appurtenant land under Section 9, though the limited space immediately around the buildings was protected as found by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's limited relief regarding the buildings and immediately surrounding space was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Act, later vesting in a Gaon Sabha is a qualified vesting subject to the State's continuing legal interest, and "appurtenant" land means only land necessary for the enjoyment of the building as a building, not land used for an independent commercial or communal activity.

---