A person who forcibly occupies land cannot acquire adhivasi rights under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1952.

Headnote:
ADHIVASI RIGHTS - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT 1 OF 1951, S. 20 (B) - U. P. LAND REFORMS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ACT 31 OF 1952, S. 3 - CULTIVATORY POSSESSION - INTERPRETATION - ADHIVASI RIGHTS NOT ACQUIRED BY WRONGFUL OCCUPATION - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION TO GRANT POSSESSION AGAINST TRESPASSER.
Fact of the Case:

Pritam Singh claimed adhivasi rights over agricultural land based on entries in the revenue records for 1356 and 1359 Fasli. The plaintiffs, who were declared bhumidhars of the land, filed a suit for a declaration of their rights and an injunction restraining Pritam Singh from interfering with their possession.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that Pritam Singh did not acquire adhivasi rights under Section 20 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951 because the entry in the revenue records showing him as an occupant was not genuine. The Court also held that Pritam Singh did not acquire adhivasi rights under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1952 because he was not in "cultivatory possession" of the land during the year 1359 Fasli. The Court further held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant possession of the land to the plaintiffs, even though the land was under attachment by the Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether Pritam Singh acquired adhivasi rights under Section 20 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951? 2. Whether Pritam Singh acquired adhivasi rights under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1952? 3. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant possession of the land to the plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The entry in the revenue records showing Pritam Singh as an occupant was not genuine, as it was not made in the proper column and was not supported by any other evidence. 2. Pritam Singh was not in "cultivatory possession" of the land during the year 1359 Fasli because he had no lawful right to be in possession of the land and he did not have actual possession of the land. 3. The Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant possession of the land to the plaintiffs because the suit was properly filed for a declaration of title and injunction, and the High Court was justified in allowing amendment of the plaint and granting a decree for possession to avoid giving a fresh lease of life to the litigation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgement

SHAH, J. : A piece of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 723/2, 724, 725 and 726 of Naugawan, Tahsil Fatehabad, District Agra, originally belonged to two brothers Tota Ram and Lajja Ram. Tota Ram and Lajja Ram were declared to be bhumidhars in respect of that land and a sanad was issued in their favour under S. 7 of the U. P. Act 10 of 1949. On October 20, 1951, Tota Ram and Lajja Ram sold their interest in the land to two brothers Sri Ram and Ram Prasad - who will hereinafter be called the plaintiffs . Disputes arose thereafter about the possession of the land between one. Pritam Singh and the plaintiffs, and proceedings under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the instance of Pritam Singh. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the kind and called upon the parties to agitate the dispute as to their respective rights there in a civil suit.

2. The plaintiffs then commenced an action in the Court of the Munsif, Fatehabad, against Pritam Singh and Tota ham for a declaration of their rights as bhumidhars in possession of the land in suit and for an order "expunging" the name of Pritam Singh from the revenue records. Pritam Singh resisted the suit contending, inter alia, that the land was abandoned by Tota Ram and Lajja Ram and that since it was under his cultivation continuously since Fasli year 1356 (the year commencing from July 1, 1948 and ending on June 30, 1949), he had acquired the rights of an adhivasi in the land and he was not liable to be evicted from the same. The Munsif referred the following issue arising out of the pleadings to the Assistant Collector, Agra, for decision :

Whether the defendant No. 1 (Pritam Singh) has acquired adhivasi rights, if so, its effect ?

The Assistant Collector held that the revenue records did not show that Pritam Singh was in possession at any time in or before the end of 1359 Fasli and that the entries in the Khasra relied upon by Pritam Singh had been fabricated to support his case. Consistently with the finding of the Assistant Collector, the Munsif passed judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. But in appeal to the District Court, Agra, that judgment was reversed. The Appellate Judge held that the revenue entries were genuine entries posted by the Patwari in discharge of his duty and that Pritam Singh was in possession in the year 1356 Fasli and also in 1359 Fasli and he had acquired the rights of an adhivasi. The plaintiffs then the dispute to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court reversed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court and restored the decree of the Munsif. With special leave, the heirs and legal representatives of Pritam Singh have appealed to this Court.

3. It was not the case of Pritam Singh that he has acquired title to the land by transfer or by adverse possession. Pritam Singh relied merely upon the entries in the Khasra for 1356 Fasli, and his claim of possession of the land in Fasli 1359, and upon statutory consequences arming from the entries under S. 20 (b) of the U P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951, and S. 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1952. The U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951 was brought into force from July 1, 1952. By S. 20 certain right were conferred upon persons whose names were recorded in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land. The material clause (b) of S. 20 on which reliance is placed reads as follows.

"20. Every person who

(a) * * * * *

(b) was recorded as occupant-

(i) of any land (other than grove land or lands to which section 16 applies) in the khasra or khatauni prepared under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, or who was on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting entitled to regain possession thereof under Clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 27 of the United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act. 1947, or

(ii) * * * * *"

The land in dispute is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document