IMPORTANT POINT
Application by appellant for declaration of rights under Section 122-B (4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was rightly allowed by SDO. The Board of Revenue and High Court were wrong in reversing it on taking a narrow view of the rights and remedies of the appellant.

Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 122B (4F)-Application by appellant for declaration of rights under Section 122B(4F)-SDO found him in continuous possession as a member of Scheduled Caste-Land was not vacant at the time of grant of lease by Gaon Sabha-Name of appellant recorded as Bhumidhar-Affirmed by appellate authority-But reversed in revision by Board of Revenue-Upheld by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right in affirming Board of Revenue? (No)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : We are of the view that it would be travesty of justice to deny relief to the appellant who is a Scheduled caste agricultural labourer and relegate him to an unfortunate situation of being left without remedy though he has a statutory right to continue in possession and enjoyment of the land. The High Court seems to have taken a narrow view of the rights and remedies of the appellant, leaving him to pursue a lortuous course of litigation to safeguard his rights. (Para 3)
       Held (after discussion of legal position) : That being the legal position, there is no bar against an application being made by the eligible person coming within the four corners of sub-section (4F) to effect necessary changes in the revenue record. When once the claim of the applicant is accepted, it is the bounden duty of the concerned revenue authorities to make necessary entries in revenue records to give effect to the statutory mandate. The obligation to do so arises by necessary implication by reason of the statutory right vested in the person coming within the ambit of sub-section (4F). The lack of specific provision for making an application under the Act is no ground to dismiss the application as not maintainable. The revenue records should naturally fall in line with the rights statutorily recognized. The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore within his rights to allow the application and direct the correction of the records. The Board of Revenue and the High Court should not have set aside that order. The fact that the Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha had created lease hold rights in favour of the respondents herein is of no consequence. Such lease, in the face of the statutory right of the appellant, is non est in the eye of law and is liable to be ignored. It is surprising that the State of U.P. had chosen to file an appeal against the order of the S.D.O., in tandem with the Gaon Sabha. It seems to be a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the concerned authorities of the State who are supposed to effectuate the socio-economic objective of the legislation. The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court are set aside. The S.D.O. s order is restored. No costs. (Para 10, 11 & 12)

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.- Aggrieved by the following order of the Board of Revenue, U.P., the appellant herein preferred Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Allahabad:

"The proceedings began on an application dt. 20-12-1990 moved by Manorey for declaration of rights under section 122-B (4F) Z.A. Act Two courts have allowed.

No application is supportable under this Section. Revision is allowed. Orders of two courts below is set aside. Application is dismissed."

2. The High Court upheld the view of the Board of Revenue and dismissed the Writ Petition. In doing so, the High Court followed its earlier decision reported in Ramdin v. Board of Revenue [(1994) Revenue Decisions, Page 388]. The present appeal is directed against that order of the High Court.

3. Going by the orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court, the maintainability of an application seeking recognition of right under Section 122B (4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is the issue that loomed large before the Board and the High Court. We are of the view that it would be travesty of justice to deny relief to the appellant who is a Scheduled caste agricultural labourer and relegate him to an unfortunate situation of being left without remedy though he has a statutory right to continue in possession and enjoyment of the land. The High Court seems to have taken a narrow view of the rights and remedies of the appellant, leaving him to pursue a lortuous course of litigation to safeguard his rights.

4. The brief facts are these: the appellant who is a landless labourer belonging to scheduled caste filed an application before the S.D.O., Konch on 20-12-1990 stating that he had been cultivating the land admeasuring 2.45 acres since 14-15 years and that the said land was leased out to others (respondents herein) in the year 1990 by the Gaon Sabha of Torna village treating it as fallow land. The said allotment was approved by the S.D.O., Konch on 14-11-1990. Apprehending that the appellant will be evicted, he filed an application on 20-12-1990 before the S.D.O., Konch for protection of his right under sub-section (4F) of Section 122B of the Act and to direct necessary amendments to be made in the revenue records. It appears that in the relevant record, the Gaon Sabha was shown to be holding the land in question which got vested in it under Section 117-(1)(i) of the Act, on the publication of a Notification under Section 4. The S.D.O., on inquiry, held that the petitioner was continuously in possession prior to 30th June, 1975 (it is not clear whether the correct year is 1975 or 1985) and continued to be so even on the date of allotment of the land to a third party. He referred to sub-section 4F of Section 122B and held that rights over the land accrued to him under the said provision. He, therefore, directed that the name of the appellant should be recorded as bhumidhar with non transferable right by deleting the name of Gaon Sabha on the records. On appeal, preferred by the State of U.P., the Gaon Sabha and the allottees of land (R-2 to R-5 herein), the appellate authority i.e., Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division agreed with the findings of the S.D.O. that the respondent (appellant herein) had been in continuous possession prior to and after 30th June, 1985 and as he is a member of Scheduled caste, his right under Section 122B(4F) was established. The appellate authority also observed that the land was not vacant at the time of grant of lease by the Gaon Sabha. Both the authorities referred to entries in khasras for the crop years 1389-1391 faslis (corresponding to 1979-1981) and irrigation receipts pertaining to 1393-1397 faslis.

5. Though all the respondents were served, none of them entered appearance and therefore the appeal has been considered ex-parte.

6. To appreciate the issue, the reference to Section 122B is necessary. The said Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document