Tenants who had been evicted from their land under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act were entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the Act, which allowed them to apply for reinstatement, even in proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

Headnote:
U. P. TENANCY ACT, 1939 - SECTION 27 - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 19 - U. P. CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT, 1953 - SECTION 9-A(2) - REINSTATEMENT OF EVICTED TENANTS - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 27 OF THE U. P. TENANCY ACT TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE U. P. CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 19 OF THE U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT - DETERMINATION OF SIRDARI RIGHTS.
Fact of the Case:

Appellants were evicted from land by the Zamindar in 1943 under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. They applied for reinstatement under Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, which was pending when the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force. During consolidation proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, respondents claimed sirdari rights over the land. The Consolidation Officer dismissed their objections, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed them.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court dismissed the appellants' writ petition, holding that they were not entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act as they had not applied for reinstatement under that section. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had committed an error of fact in recording this finding, as the appellants had in fact made an application for reinstatement under Section 27.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had applied for reinstatement under Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in the consolidation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in finding that the appellants had not applied for reinstatement under Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The Court noted that the appellants had specifically pleaded in their writ petition that they had made such an application, and that this was supported by a copy of the application filed under that section. 2. The Court further held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in the consolidation proceedings. The Court noted that Section 19 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provided that tenants who had been evicted from their land under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act would be deemed to be sirdars of that land, and that this provision was applicable to proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and remanded the case for a fresh disposal according to law.

( 1 ). Samarn Singh and Brahmanand who are the appellants before us were let out certain land by the Zamindar who subsequently evicted them from that land in 1943 in proceedings under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Later, when the U. R Tenancy Act was amended by the U. P. Act 10 of 1947and Section 27 was inserted in that Act, the appellants made an application for reinstatement over that land.

( 2 ). While the proceedings under Section 27 were pending, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enforced with effect from 1/7/1952. In the meantime, proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 started in pursuance of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The proceedings under Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act were, on the date of notification, pending and had not been disposed of. In those proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Respondents 2 to 7 filed objections under Section 9-A (2 of the Act claiming sirdari rights over the plots in question. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 30/8/1970 dismissed the objections with the findings that the appellants were in possession over the land in question in 1356 and 1359 Fasli and, therefore, they had become Sirdars of that land under Section 19 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This order was upheld by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, but set aside in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The appellants, thereafter, filed a writ petition in the High court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment with the finding that the benefit of Section 27 of the U. P. Tenancy Act will not be available to the writ petitioners as they had not made any application under that section for their reinstatement over that land.

( 3 ). Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the High court has committed an error of fact in recording the findings. He has drawn our attention to the copy of the writ petition filed in the High court. Paras 1 to 8 of the writ petition, which are relevant, are reproduced below:

"that Respondents 2 to 4 filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in respect of Khata No. 261, (Plots Nos. 251/1, 261/3, 254/1, 223, Khata No. 273 (Plots Nos. 80-81, 217, 219, 220, Khata No. 135 (Plots Nos. 221/060, 224/0. 72, 225/0. 63 situate in Village Chilsari Shamshabad East, District Farrukhabad with the allegations that they were ejected under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act by the then Zamindar and their ejectment was based on fraud and undue influence exercised by the Kukhtar-e-arn of the Zamindar. 2. That they further alleged that they applied for the reinstatement under Section 27 of Act 10 of 1947 and during the pendency of the writ petition the notification under Section 4 of the CH Act was made in the village. 3. That the petitioners contested the objection of Respondents 2 to 4 on the ground that they as well as Respondents 2 to 4 and 8 were ejected under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. They further alleged that all the above petitioners and the aforesaid respondents, i. e. Respondents 2 to 4 and 8 applied for reinstatement under Section 27 of Act 10 of 1947. The action for restoration of possession had not concluded when the consolidation proceedings came in and the dispute had been stayed. 640 4. That the other respondents contested the objection of Respondents 2 to 4 on the ground that after the ejectment under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act the Zamindar let out the disputed land to them and they are in possession over the same. They further contested the objection on the ground that the Consolidation courts had no jurisdiction to decide the application for reinstatement under Section 27 of Act 10 of 1947. 5. That the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of Respondents 2 to 4 and maintained the basic year entries in the names of the petitioners, and Respondents 5 to 8 on the ground

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 537

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASARNAM SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATIONDecided on April 21, 1999

Tenants who had been evicted from their land under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act were entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the Act, which allowed them to apply for reinstatement, even in proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SARNAM SINGH
Vs.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
Decided on April 21, 1999