1. Dispute over recovery of possession of land under Section 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act based on Adhivasi rights under Section 20. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th September, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Khalil-ul-Rahman and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1959**
Civil Appeal No. 196 of 1952*.
Khalil-ul-Rahman and others, Appellants
Versus
Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. and others, Respondents. 144
Civil Appeals No. 196 of 1952 and No. 4 of 1959.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. C .B. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, (Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellant ( in C. A. No. 196 of 1952) and Respondent No. 1(in C. A. No. 4 of 1959); Mr. Achhru Ram, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellants (in C. A. No. 4 of 1959) and Respondents (in C. A. No. 196 of 1952).
Advocates:
ACHHRU RAM, C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, NAUNIT LAL
ACHHRU RAM, C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, NAUNIT LAL
"Occupant" under land reform laws refers to a person in possession in their own right. Possession maintained via court stay orders is not possession on behalf of the court, and revenue entries as a lessee do not preclude "occupant" status if the lease has expired.
Headnote:(A) Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Sections 20(b), 12 and 232 - Tenancy Act, 1939 - Section 29 - Interpretation of "occupant" - A person recorded as an occupant in the revenue records for the relevant year is entitled to rights as an adhivasi, provided the occupation is in their own right and not on behalf of another. (Paras 5, 7)
(B) Possession and Stay Orders - Possession of land maintained by a party through stay orders obtained from appellate courts is not deemed to be possession on behalf of the court; it remains possession in the right asserted by the party. (Para 8)
(C) Revenue Records - An entry in the revenue records describing a party as a lessee (thekedar) does not conclusively establish that the possession is on behalf of the lessor, particularly where the lease has expired. The nature of possession must be determined based on evidence. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A company held land under a lease which expired. Following a decree for ejectment, the company remained in possession of the land due to stay orders granted by appellate courts. After the enactment of land reform legislation, the company sought recovery of possession as an adhivasi, claiming it was recorded as an occupant in the revenue records for the specified year. The landlords contended that the company's possession was either on behalf of the court due to stay orders or on behalf of the landlords as a lessee.
Findings of Court:
The company was recorded as an occupant in the relevant year. The possession continued in the same right as before the ejectment decree, and stay orders did not change the nature of this possession to be on behalf of the court. Furthermore, the entry as a lessee in the revenue records did not preclude the company from being an occupant in its own right since the lease had already expired.
Issues: Whether a party who remained in possession of land via stay orders after the expiry of a lease and a decree for ejectment, and was recorded as an occupant in revenue records, qualifies as an "occupant" in their own right under the land reforms act.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "occupant" means a person in occupation in their own right. Possession maintained by stay orders is not possession on behalf of the court. Revenue entries regarding the status of a lessee are not conclusive regarding the nature of possession and can be looked into with other evidence, especially when the lease has terminated.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether possession maintained via court stay orders or recorded as a leaseholder constitutes being an occupant in one's own right under Section 20. (Para 7 , 9 )
3. Possession continuing under stay orders remains in the party's asserted right; revenue entries as leaseholder do not preclude a finding of occupancy in one's own right. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. A person recorded as occupant who maintains possession via court stay orders is deemed to be in occupation in their own right for Adhivasi rights. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeals dismissed; the company is entitled to Adhivasi rights under the Act. (Para 10 , 11 , 20 )
6. What is the meaning of occupant under Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act?
Since the term is not defined in the Act, it is given its ordinary dictionary meaning: a person in occupation. Judicial interpretation limits this to a person in occupation in their own right and not on behalf of someone else. (Para 7 )
7. Does possession maintained by a court stay order disqualify a person from being an occupant under Section 20?
No. Possession continuing because of stay orders passed by an appellate court is not deemed to be on behalf of the court; the person remains in possession in the right they asserted. (Para 8 )
8. Does a revenue record entry as a Thekedar automatically mean the person is not an occupant in their own right?
No. The nature of possession—whether on one's own behalf or another's—must be decided on evidence. A Thekedar entry does not preclude a finding of occupancy in one's own right, especially if the lease had expired. (Para 9 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. (On behalf of himself and Sinha C. J., Gajendragadkar and Shah JJ.) : These two connected appeals will be disposed of by one judgment. Appeal No. 196 of 1952 is by the Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) while Appeal No. 4 of 1959 is by Mohd. Khalilul Rehman and others (hereinafter called the landlords). The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. Mukhtiar Ahmed, father of the landlords, granted a thekas to the Company in August 1933 (corresponding to 1341F) of the lands in dispute for a period of ten years ending with 1350 F (June 1943). The theka contained a clause giving option to the Company to get it renewed for five years and in consequence the theka was renewed for five years from 1351 F to 1355 F (that is upto June 1948). Thereafter the theka provided for option to renew the lease with the lessor. In March 1948, the landlords gave notice to the Company to the effect that the theka would not be renewed after 1355 F. The Company, however, did not agree to hand over possession to the landlords and consequently a suit was filed by the landlords for ejectment of the Company under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. It was resisted by the Company on the ground that it was not a thekedar but a tenant and had become hereditary tenant under Sec. 29 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. This plea failed and the suit was decreed on November 3, 1948. There was an appeal by the Company against the decree. This appeal also failed. Then the Company went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue and eventually the second appeal was dismissed on July 22, 1950. During all this period from November 1948 to July 1950, the Company remained in possession of the land in dispute on account of stay orders obtained from the appellate Courts. Execution began in October 1950 & it is said that possession was delivered to the landlords on October 13, 1950, and a Dakhalnama was filed on October 15, 1950. It appears, however, that the Company offered resistance to actual ejectment and this led to proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the magistrate ordered the attachment of the land in November 1950 and appointed two superdars (caretakers). The Company applied to the Board for a certificate which was granted; and that is how Appeal No. 196 has come to this Court.
2. In the meantime, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951, (hereinafter called the Act) came into force. On July 1, 1953, the Company thereupon instituted proceedings to recover actual possession of the land under S. 232 of the Act read with Ss. 12 and 20 thereof. The Sub-Divisional Officer decided in January 1954 in favour of the Company and ordered delivery of possession to it holding that the Company was entitled to possession both under S. 12 as well as under S. 20 of the Act. The landlords went up in appeal, which was dismissed in January 1955. The appellate Court held that the Company was entitled to recover possession under S. 12 but did not decide the case put forward by the Company under S. 20. Thereupon there was a second appeal to the Board of Revenue which was dismissed in January 1956. The Board also decided the appeal on the basis of S. 12 and did not consider the case as put forward under S. 20. The landlords then came to this Court and were granted special leave to appeal in May 1956; and that is how Appeal No. 4 became pending in this Court.
3. These appeals were heard on November 18, 1959, and this Court remanded the matter and called for a finding from the Board whether the Company had acquired any rights under S. 20 of the Act. The finding has been submitted by the Board and is to the effect that the Company is entitled to the benefit of S. 20 of the Act and has acquired Adhivasi rights thereunder.
4. It is conceded by learned counsel for the landlords that if Appeal No. 4 fails and the right of the Company either under S. 12 or under S. 20 is upheld, it would not be necessary to g
