Back
2012 Supreme(All) 1403
[2012(8) ADJ 471]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SANJAY MISRA, J.
JAGVIDIT ....Petitioner
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11951 of 1975, decided on 25th May, 2012)
Counsel :
D.S.P. Singh and L.S. Srivastava for the Petitioner; Manoj Kumar Singh, S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Section 20—U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953—Sections 9-A(2), 11(1) and 48 (1)—Land Dispute—Rights of 'Occupants'—Sirdari rights—Whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3 became sirdar by virtue of Section 20, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and then acquired Bhumidhari right?—Petitioner whether required to prove adverse possession against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after the date of vesting—To hold that persons in occupation by permission of the land owner be extending that benefit to a person who did not fall in any category envisaged in the statutory provision—'Occupant' does not include 'sajhidari' or 'licensees'—Possession of petitioner has been continuously recorded in Remarks column of 1362 F,1366 F, 1367 F, 1371 F and 1372 F—Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded in Part II of the Khatauni, which entry does not relate to a sub-tenant—They did not become Sirdar or Adhivashi nor could acquire bhumidhari rights—Since possession of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was permissive hence they were not occupant of the land in dispute and could not be given benefit of Section 20—Impugned order set aside. [Paras 19 to 33]
Result; Petition Allowed.
Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.5.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi in Revision No. 1254 (Ram Roop and another v. Jagvidit and others) whereby the Revision has been allowed, the order dated 3.7.1974 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been set aside, the name of Jagvidit has been expunged from the Revenue Record and the names of Ram Roop and Ram Harak has been directed to continue therein.
2. The dispute in this writ petition relates to Plot No. 320M area 0.30 acres in Khata No. 158. In the basic year i.e. 1379F the names of Ram Roop and Ram Harak was recorded. Proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act started on the objection filed by Jagvidit. The Consolidation Officer framed the issue as to whether Jagvidit Singh and others are Sirdar on the basis of possession. He recorded that Jagvidit Singh has shown his possession over the land since before the date of vesting on the basis of entries recorded in Khasra of 1363F, 1365F, 1366 and 1372F. The Consolidation Officer found that in the Khasra of 1370F the names of Jagvidit and Ram Roop and Ram Harak is recorded. He held that in certain years the name of Jagvidit is not recorded but when Ram Roop and Ram Harak had failed to prove that they had taken back the possession from Jagvidit then they had not been able to establish that the land was given by them to Jagvidit only for cultivation on Sajha or Adhaiya.
3. Learned counsel for the parties explain that Sajha or Adhaiya means the giving of possession of the land by the tenure holder to another person for the purpose of cultivation on sharing the harvested crop half and half in a season.
4. The Consolidation Officer perused the Khatauni of 1371F to 1373F where there was an entry made by supervision kanungo recording the name of Jagvidit in Column 9. He held that in view of the long standing entries in favour of Jagvidit the entry of 1356F in favour of Ram Roop and Ram Harak has lost its relevance since they have lost their rights or claim of Sirdari rights having lost possession over land even though Jagvidit had admitted the taking of the land on Sajha for one year. The Consolidation Officer recorded that Jagvidit was in possession for more than six years hence by virtue of possession he became Sirdar.
5. Ram Roop and Ram Harak filed Appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act against the order dated 8.12.1973 of the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer Consolidation agreed with the findings and conclusions of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the Appeal on 3.7.1974. Ram Roop and Ram Harak then preferred a Revision No. 1254 under Section 48(1) of the Act which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 17.5.1975 hence this writ petition.
6. When this writ petition was admitted on 23.2.1976 an interim order was passed providing that the petitioner Jagvidit shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute provided he has not been dispossessed already.
7. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner Jagvidit and the Respondent No. 2, Ram Roop died and have been substituted by their heirs and legal representatives.
8. The submission of Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Ram Roop and Ram Harak had taken the land on Sajha from the petitioner Jagvidit. The entry of the name of Ram Roop and Ram Harak in 1356F had no source and it was a first time entry. Since the Respondent No. 2 and 3 Ram Roop and Ram Harak had been been given the land on Sajha hence they could not acquire tenancy rights and Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot confer any benefit. He submits that there was no basis for the entry of the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the date of vesting hence the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an illegality in holding that the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 entered in 1359F would be from 1356F. Ac
