JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:- The original appellant Udai and one Pargash (the pre decessor-in-interest. of the fifth respondent herein) were recorded as Sirdars over Khata Nos. 203 and 217 in village Murmaicha, Pargana Bhidohi, Talisil Gyanpur, District Varanasi. The fourth respondent Smt.Raghunathi filed an objection, under S. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, challenging the correctness of the entries made in favour of Udai and Pargash. She claimed that she had been in possession of the said plots and that Udai and Pargash had no connection therewith. The case of Udai and Pargash, on the other hand, was that the plots in question have been let out to them by the objector, that they had been recorded as sub tenants in the yer 1357 Fasli and, as such, they had acquired Sirdari rights. The Consolidation Officer upheld the claim of Smt. Raghunathi in respect of khata No. 203 but rejected it in respect of khata No. 217.

2. The Settlement Officer, by his order dated 18-1-68, allowed the appeal of Udai but dismissed the appeal of Smt. Raghunathi in respect of khata No. 217 with the result that both Udai and Shri Ram (son of Pargash) were held Sirdars of the respective khatas : The revision petition of Smt. Raghunathi before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was unsuccessful and thereupon she filed a writ petition being CMW No. 6844 of 1972 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of the Consolidation Authorities.

3. Before the High Court, the controversy between the parties was within a very narrow compass. It was common ground that Udai and Pargash had been recorded as "snikmi" tenants in 1357 Fasli and that this was tantamount to their being sub-tenants in respect of the plots in question. The short point that was urged before the High Court was that a sub-tenant in possession of the lands could not claim rights under S. 20(b)(i) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is this contention that has been accepted by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, who, consequently, allowed the writ petition and quashed the rights conferred on Udai and Pargash. This has led to the present appeal.

4. As before the High Court, before us, the short question that arises for consideration is whether a sub-tenant in possession of the property is entitled to Adhivasi or Sirdari rights under Section 20 of the Act. This section, insofar as it is material, reads thus:

"20. Every person who

x x x x x x x x

(b) was recorded as occupant, x x x x x

(i) of any land......... in the khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli prepared under Ss. 28 and 33 respectively of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act III of 1901) ..........

shall x x x x x be called Adhivasi of the land and shall x x x x x be entitled to take or retain possession thereof."

Only one slight modification to be noted in regard to the applicability of the section to the present case, which relates to Varanasi District, is that, by a subsequent amendment, the reference to 1356 Fasli has to be read as reference to 1357 Fasli in respect of areas comprised in the erstwhile Banaras State. In other words, the question is: Can a person recorded in the village records as sub-tenant in respect of certain land for 1357 Fasli be said to have been recorded as occupant of that land for that Fasli?

5. The answer to the above question seems self-evident if one were to go by the purely etymological meaning of the word occupant". In the absence of any statutory definition, that word would clearly cover any person who has been recorded as having been in occupation of the land in question in the relevant fasli irrespective of the capacity in, or, title under, which he so occupied it. There will therefore be no reason, normally speaking, to exclude a person whose occupancy is recorded on the basis of his sub-tenancy. It appears, however, that in one of the early decisions under the Act, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Co