Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. A learned Single Judge of this Court felt that the three Judge Full Bench decision in Smt. Maya v. Raja Dulajji, 1970 AWR 272 required reconsideration. He has referred the involved question for consideration by a larger Full Bench. That is how this matter has come up before this larger Bench. The question of law referred for our consideration is : - "Whether the benefit of Sec. 21 (1) (h) of the UP ZA and LR Act is available to successor-in-interest of a landholder who was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 21(l)(h) of the Act, and, if so, in what circumstances ?

2. THE material and relevant findings of the consolidation authorities are that the plots in dispute were sir of one Ganga Prasad. He died and was succeeded by his widow Kaushal Kuer. Kaushal Kuer sublet different plots to respondents 4 to 18. Kaushal Kuer, after having sublet the plots, died on June 5, 1947. She was succeeded by the present petitioners. They are not disabled persons. Consolidation proceedings commenced in the village. In the basic year the petitioners' names were recorded. The respondents filed objections. They claimed that they were entitled to be recorded as Adhivasis/sirdars after expunging the names of the petitioners. They pleaded that though the plots were sublet to the objectors by a widow, i.e. Smt. Kaushal Kuer, a disabled person within the meaning of Sec. 157 of the UP ZA and LR Act but since on the date preceding the date of vesting, the present petitioners were the landholders and they were not disabled persons, Sec. 21 (1) (h) was not applicable. The objectors became Adhivasis under Sec. 20 of the ZA Act and subsequently they acquired sirdari rights. The objection was repelled by the Consolidation Officer. The objectors appealed. The Settlement Officer found that the subletting was done by the widow. She died on June 5, 1947. The successors were not disabled persons. Clause (h) of Sec. 21 (1) of the ZA Act was not applicable. The objectors became Adhivasis and then sirdars. The petitioners filed revisions which failed. They have filed the present writ petition.

3. THE question whether the objectors opposite-parties are Adhivasis or Asamis depends upon the interpretation of clause (h) of Sec. 21 (1) of the ZA Act. This clause was introduced in the ZA Act by Amending Act No. 16 of 1953. It was added with retrospective effect from the date of vesting, namely, July 1, 1952.

4. SECTION 21 dealt with Asmai rights. Clause (h) as introduced by the Amending Act of 1953 ran as follows :

"21. Non-occupancy tenants, subtenants of grove lands and tenants mortgagees to be Asami. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting occupied or held land as- (a) to (g)................ (h) A tenant of sir or land referred to in sub-clause (a) or clause (i) of the Explanation u/Sec. 16, a sub-tenant or an occupant referred to in Sec. 20 where the land-holder or if there are more than one land-holder, all of them were persons or person belonging, both on the date of letting and on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 10 or clause (e) of sub-sec. (1)of Sec. 157 shall be deemed to be Asami thereof."

SECTION 21 confers on the classes of persons mentioned in it, a subordinate status, namely, that of an Asami. One of the conditions mentioned in clause (h) is that the land-holder should belong to one or more of the classes mentioned in Sec. 10 (2) or clause (e) of Sec. 157 (1). These clauses mention various classes of disabled persons namely widow, minor, etc. Clause (h) applied if the land-holder was a disabled person both on the date of letting and on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, namely June 30, 1952.

5. THE Amending Act No. 20 of 1954 retrospectively amended clause (h). After amendment, clause (h) of Sec. 21 (1) read as follows :-

"21. Non occupancy tenants, s