Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant Patiraji is entitled to the "Adhivasi" rights under Section 20 (b) (i) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ("the Act").

2. One Ram Adhar and the respondents were co-tenants of certain lands situated at Bibiganj, District Sultanpur. On the death of Ram Adhar on 24-2-1949 the appellant took proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act 1939 for a declaration that she was the widow of Ram Adhar and as such, had become a co-tenant along with the respondents. The appellant succeeded before the Assistant Collector but in appeal, the Additional Commissioner and then the Board of Revenue took a contrary view, holding that the appellant was not the widow of Ram Adhar. The judgment of the Board of Revenue is dated July 1, 1954.

3. In the meanwhile, the Act had come into force on July 1, 1952. The appellant then brought the present suit, treated as one under S. 20 (b) read with Section 232 of the Act. The case of the appellant is that her name was recorded as an occupant in the Khasra of 1356F, that she has therefore become an Adhivasi under Section 20 (b) (i) and is consequently entitled to possession of the lands from which she was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit but the Additional Commissioner allowed Patiraji s appeal and decreed her suit. Respondents carried an appeal against the decision of the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue but that appeal was dismissed. The respondents then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of that court. He held that the entry in favour of the appellant appeared in the Khasra of 1356F, for a part of the year only and therefore she was not entitled to the Adhivasi rights. Special Appeal No. 344 of 1956 against that judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine on October 31, 1956. This is an appeal by special leave against that decision.

4. The sole foundation of the appellant s claim is an entry which appears in the Khasra of 1356F, which is to the following effects-

"Ram Adhar Pandey Bakasht Waris Baqa biz Smt. Patraji Motwaffi Bewa Ram Adhar Pandey Tarikh 24-2-49 Se", that is to say "Ram Adhar Pandey in cultivation heir in possession Smt. Patraji widow of deceased Ram Adhar Pandey from 24-2-49".

The importance of this entry consists in the special benefit which such entries confer under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act:

20. Every person who..........

(b) was recorded as occupant

(i) of any land..... in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356F....... shall........be called Adhivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof."

None of the four explanations to Section 20 is relevant for the present purpose.

5. Looking at the provision contained in Section 20 (b) (i), it seems to us plain that the Adhivasi rights can be claimed by those persons only who are recorded as occupants for the whole of the Fasli year 1356. It is important to remember that the rights conferred by Section 20 (b) (i) are available even and mostly to trespassers. Clearly therefore, there is, in the first instance, no justification for construing the provision with greater liberality than the language warrants. Special rights conferred by the Act ought to be subject to the special limitations imposed by the Act.

6. Apart from this aspect, any other view of Section 20 (b) (i) would make it unworkable in practice and would set the pace for lawlessness amongst trespassers. If different persons are in occupation of a land during different parts of the year, whom shall the court recognise as an Adhivasi and by what test shall the court pick and choose? Under the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual, the Lekhpal has to make three field-to-field inspections of every village in his halka, beginning respectively on August 15th, January 15th and April