# Mewa Lal v. D.D.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 234
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-03
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 14553 of 1981
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mewa-lal-v-d-d-c-ors-52240
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

N.S. Chaudhary, Abhishek Kumar Tripathi,
Anil Kumar Dubey, G.C. Tiwari, G.C.
Dwivedi, K. Shahi, N.C. Chaudhary, R.S.
Kushwaha, S.C. Satya Mohan, V. Shahi, V.
Singh

A. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1951 - U.P. Land Reforms
(Supplementary)
Act,
1952
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953- To
claim the status of an Asami or Adhivasi under
Section
3
of
the
U.P.
Land
Reforms
(Supplementary) Act, 1952, the claimant must
prove lawful "cultivatory possession" of the land
during 1359 Fasli. A trespasser who enters land
forcibly or without lawful right cannot claim such
possession. A person cannot acquire the status
of an Adhivasi against a Bhumidhar merely by
forceful occupation of land after 1358 Fasli.
(Para 13)

B.
Petitioners
filed
objections
under
Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, claiming to have been
Shikami tenants who became Adhivasi and later
Sirdar after the date of vesting. They sought the
expunging of the respondents' names from the
disputed plots (Nos. 376 and 377), asserting
long-standing possession prior to vesting.
Respondents claimed Bhumidhar rights through
sale deed executed in 1963.Held :- Entries in
the "remark column" (Khana Kafiyat) were not
made as per Paragraph 87 of the U.P. Record
Manual and could not be relied upon to
determine
rights.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation rightly held that the judgment
under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be
relied upon in consolidation proceedings due to
the abatement of the original proceedings.
Revisional
court
properly
exercised
its
jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act by considering
evidence from the Section 229B proceedings
where relevant.(Para 15, 16)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 40,986. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
55. Having observed above, this
Court finds no force in the present petition.
It is accordingly dismissed. Costs made
easy.

56. The Court records the valuable
assistance given by Ms. Urmish Shankar,
Research Associate, attached with me in
drafting this judgment and finding out case
laws applicable in the present case.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 234
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 14553 of 1981

Mewa Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.L. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
N.S. Chaudhary, Abhishek Kumar Tripathi,
Anil Kumar Dubey, G.C. Tiwari, G.C.
Dwivedi, K. Shahi, N.C. Chaudhary, R.S.
Kushwaha, S.C. Satya Mohan, V. Shahi, V.
Singh

A. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1951 - U.P. Land Reforms
(Supplementary)
Act,
1952
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953- To
claim the status of an Asami or Adhivasi under
Section
3
of
the
U.P.
Land
Reforms
(Supplementary) Act, 1952, the claimant must
prove lawful "cultivatory possession" of the land
during 1359 Fasli. A trespasser who enters land
forcibly or without lawful right cannot claim such
possession. A person cannot acquire the status
of an Adhivasi against a Bhumidhar merely by
forceful occupation of land after 1358 Fasli.
(Para 13)

B.
Petitioners
filed
objections
under
Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, claiming to have been
Shikami tenants who became Adhivasi and later
Sirdar after the date of vesting. They sought the
expunging of the respondents' names from the
disputed plots (Nos. 376 and 377), asserting
long-standing possession prior to vesting.
Respondents claimed Bhumidhar rights through
sale deed executed in 1963.Held :- Entries in
the "remark column" (Khana Kafiyat) were not
made as per Paragraph 87 of the U.P. Record
Manual and could not be relied upon to
determine
rights.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation rightly held that the judgment
under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be
relied upon in consolidation proceedings due to
the abatement of the original proceedings.
Revisional
court
properly
exercised
its
jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act by considering
evidence from the Section 229B proceedings
where relevant.(Para 15, 16)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

1. M/S South Indian Bank Ltd & ors. Vs Naveen
Mathew Philip & anr. (2023) 4 S.C.R. 18

2. Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radha Krishnan & ors.
ii. (1964)5S.C.R. 64

3. Bhagwati Deen Vs Sheetladin & ors.
2022(156)RD602

4. Mukhtar Ali & ors. Vs D.D.C. Fatehpur & ors.
Neutral Citation No.- 2019:AHC:60861

5. Sonawati & ors. Vs Sri Ram & ors. 1968 RD
151

6. Lakshmania Vs D.D.C. Deoria & ors. 2020
(148) RD 114

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)
7 All. Mewa Lal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
235

1. Heard Mr. Upendra Nath Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Raghvendra
Pratap
Singh,
Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting
respondent and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
plot no.376 & 377 situated at Village-
Narainpur, Manwarpara, Pargana-Nagar
West, Tahsil- Haraya, Basti was recorded
in the name of respondent nos.2 & 3,
namely, Prabhakar Singh & Sudhakar
Singh sons of Uma Shankar Singh in the
basic year of consolidation operation.
Petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 filed objection
under
Section
9-A
(2)
of
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act")
in respect to plot no.377 and petitioner
nos.4 to 7 filed objection in respect to plot
no.376 alleging that they are Shikami
tenant of Ram Anjor Singh and after date
of vesting they became Adhivasi later on
Sirdar. It is further alleged that right of
main
tenant
extinguished
before
he
executed sale deed dated 3.1.1963 in favour
of respondent nos.2 & 3 and petitioners
continued in possession since prior to the
date of vesting till the start of consolidation
operation hence name of respondent nos.2
& 3 be expunged and petitioners be
recorded as Sirdar of the plot in question.
The suit under Section 229B of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
"U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) filed by petitioners
were ultimately abated. Respondent nos.2
& 3 claimed right of bhumidhar on the
basis of sale deed executed on 31.1.1963 by
Ram Anjor Singh. The issues were framed
before Consolidation Officer and parties
lead evidence in support of their cases.
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
8.9.1975 disposed of the objection directing
to record the name of petitioners as Sirdar
declaring their share after expunging the
name of respondent nos.2 & 3. Appeals
under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act were
filed by respondent nos.2 & 3 against the
order of Consolidation Officer dated
8.9.1975 which were registered as Appeal
Nos.73 & 74. Settlement Officer of
Consolidation vide order dated 21.11.1980
dismissed the aforementioned appeals.
Respondent nos.2 & 3 filed two revisions
under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against
the
order
of
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation which were registered as
Revision
No.498
&
499.
The
aforementioned revisions were heard and
allowed vide order dated 2.11.1981 setting
aside the orders of Consolidation Officers
and Settlement Officer of Consolidation as
well as declared the respondent nos.2 & 3
as bhumidhar of the plot in question hence
this writ petition on behalf of the
petitioners
challenging
the
impugned
revisional order dated 2.11.1981 passed by
respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Basti.

3. This Court admitted the writ
petition on 1.12.1981 and stayed the
operation of the impugned order dated
2.11.1981. On the stay vacation application
filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3, the
interim
order
dated
1.12.1981
was
confirmed subject to condition that the
petitioners shall deposit Rs.750/- annually
till the decision of the writ petition.
According to petitioners they are depositing
Rs.750/- annually till date.
`
4. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners
acquired Adhivasi & Sirdari right after the
date of vesting and right of Ram Anjor
(main tenant) came to an end, as such, Ram
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Anjar had no right to execute the sale deed
in favour of respondent nos.2 & 3 in
respect to plot in question. He further
submitted that no case has been setup by
contesting respondents that the petitioners
are mortgage hence entry of Bil Ewaj Sood
was fictitious. He further submitted that the
petitioners actual cultivatory possession in
respect to the plot in question is fully
proved from the entry of 1359 fasli, as
such, petitioners Adhivasi right & Sirdari
right after date of vesting is fully
established. He further submitted that in
view of oral statement of Ram Anjor
himself that he has been issuing rent receipt
to petitioners there was no necessity to
issue P.A.- 10 to main tenant. He further
submitted that Consolidation Officer &
Settlement Officer of Consolidation has
rightly ordered to record the name of the
petitioners as Sirdar on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence on record but
Deputy Director of Consolidation has
exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in
holding otherwise that petitioners are
entitled to be recorded as Sirdar over the
plot in question, as such, impugned
revisional order is liable to be set aside. He
further placed the revenue entry of the plot
in support of his argument. He further
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court passed in Writ- B No.2111 of 1976
(Pritam Singh vs. D.D.C. & Others) dated
12.9.2023.

5. On the other hand, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted
that interpolations have been made in the
Khasara & Khatauni of 1359 fasli which is
proved by Registrar Kanungo, as such, no
right will accrue to petitioners in respect to
plot in question. He further submitted that
the sale deed executed in favour of
respondent nos.2 & 3 was neither illegal
nor void, as such, petitioners are not
entitled to be recorded over the plot in
dispute. He further submitted that the suit
filed under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act was ultimately abated due to
consolidation operation, as such, no right
can be claimed by petitioners on the basis
of judgment and decree passed under
Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
which has been ultimately abated. He also
submitted that at the time of partal,
respondent nos.2 & 3 have been found in
possession of the plot in dispute. He further
submitted that the petitioners have not
initiated any proceeding for Adhivasi right,
as such, petitioners are not entitled to be
recorded over the plot in question. He
further submitted that the petitioners have
manipulated certain entry in collusion of
Lekhpal, as such, petitioners are not
entitled to any relief in respect to the plot in
dispute. He further submitted that the
Consolidation Officer & Settlement Officer
of Consolidation have not decided the
dispute considering the evidence on record
but Deputy Director of Consolidation after
considering the evidence on record has
found that petitioners were not Sikami
tenants, as such, they cannot acquire Sirdari
rights by operation of law. He further
submitted that finding of fact has also been
recorded
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation that P.A.-10 was neither
issued to Ram Anjor Singh nor to
respondent nos.2 & 3 and the rent receipt
alleged to be issued by Ram Anjor Singh in
favour of petitioners is collusive and
manipulated. He further submitted that the
proceeding under Section 240A & 240B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were never initiated
with respect to disputed plots, as such, no
right will accrue to petitioners in respect to
disputed plots. He further placed reliance
upon the following judgments of Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as of this Court in
support of his argument:
7 All. Mewa Lal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
237
 i. (2023) 4 S.C.R. 18 M/S South
Indian Bank Ltd & Others Vs. Naveen
Mathew Philip & Another.
ii. (1964)5S.C.R. 64 Syed
Yakoob vs. K.S. Radha Krishnan
and Others.

iii. 2022(156)RD602 Bhagwati
Deen Vs. Sheetladin and Others.

iv.
Neutral
Citation
No.-
2019:AHC:60861 Mukhtar Ali & Others
vs. D.D.C. Fatehpur and Others.

6. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the
fact that the Consolidation Officer in the
proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of
U.P.C.H. Act has ordered vide order dated
8.9.1975 to record the name of petitioners
as Sirdar after expunging the names of
respondent nos.2 & 3. There is also no
dispute about the fact that the appeals filed
by respondent nos.2 & 3 against the order
of Consolidation Officer were dismissed by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide
order dated 21.11.1980. There is also no
dispute about the fact that revisions filed by
respondent nos.2 & 3 were allowed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 2.11.1981 setting aside the
orders
of
Consolidation
Officer
&
Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well
as respondent nos.2 & 3 were declared as
bhumidhar of the plot in dispute.

8. On the basis of rival submission
of learned counsel for the parties the issues
which are to be examined are as to whether
the petitioners can be treated as Shikami
tenant of the plot in question at the relevant
point of time on the basis of revenue entry
relied upon by the petitioners accordingly
adhivasi / sirdar of the plot in question as
well
as
the
exercise
of
revisional
jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H.
Act is in accordance with law.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter the
perusal of Section 20 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act will be relevant which is as under:

"20. - [Every person who-

(a) on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting was or has
been deemed to be in accordance with the
provisions of this Act]-

(i) except as provided in [subclause (i) of Clause (b)][Substituted by U.P
Act No. 20 of 1954.], a tenant of sir other
than a tenant referred to in Clause (ix) of
Section 19 or in whose favour hereditary
rights accrue in accordance with the
provisions of Section 10; or

(ii) except as provided in [subclause (i) of Clause (b)] [Substituted by
U.P Act No. 20 of 1954.], a sub-tenant
other than a sub-tenant referred to in
proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 of
the
United
Provinces
Tenancy
(Amendment) Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of
1947), or in sub-section (4) of Section 47 of
the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939
(U.P. Act XVII of 1939) of any land other
than grove land,(

b) was recorded as occupant,-(i)
of any land [other than grove land or land
to which Section 16 applies or land
referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3)
of Section 27 of the U.P. Tenancy
(Amendment) Act, 1947][Substituted by
U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954.]in the khasra or
khatauni of 1356-F prepared under Section
28 [33] [Substituted by U.P Act No. 20 of
1954, for '32'.] respectively of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of
1901), or who was on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting entitled to
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regain possession thereof under Clause (c)
of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the
United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment)
Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of 1947); or

(ii) of any land to which Section
16 applies, in the [khasra or khatauni of
1356 fasli prepared under Sections 28 and
33 respectively of] [Substituted by U.P Act
No. 20 of 1954.] the United Provinces Land
Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901),
but who was not in possession in the year
1356-F;

shall, unless he has become a
bhumidhar of the land under sub-section
(2) of Section 18 or an asami under Clause
(h) of Section 21, be called adhivasi of the
land and shall, subject to the provisions of
this Act, be entitled to take or retain
possession thereof.

Explanation I. - Where a person
referred to in Clause (b) was evicted from
the land after June 30, 1948, he shall
notwithstanding anything in any order, be
deemed to be a person entitled to regain
possession of the land.

Explanation II. - Where any entry
in the records referred to in Clause (b) has
been corrected before the date of vesting
under or in accordance with the provisions
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U P.
Act III of 1901), the entry so corrected
shall for the purposes of the said clause,
prevail].

[Explanation III. - For the
purposes of Explanation II an entry shall
be deemed to have been corrected before
the date of vesting if an order or decree of
a competent Court requiring any correction
in records had been made before the said
date and had become final even though the
correction may not have been incorporated
in the record.

Explanation IV. - For purposes of
this section 'occupant' as respects any land
does not include a person who was entitled
as an intermediary to the land or any share
therein in the Year 1356 fasli.][Added by
U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954.]"

10. In order to examine the plea of
petitioners regarding S hikami tenant the
revenue entry of the plot in question will be
relevant. The Khasara entry of plot nos.
376 & 377 are annexed as Annexure
Nos.10 to 14 to the writ petition. Annexure
Nos.10, 11 & 12 are the Khasara entry of
plot no.376, which are as under:

Khasra
Number

Fasli
Year

Name of
Kastkar
Plot
Number

Khana
Kafiyat
376
1358
Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
111919
------
376
1359
Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
111919
Sabha Singh
376
1361
Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
111919
Sabha Singh
376
1362
Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
111919
Sabha Singh
376
1363
Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
111919
Sabha Singh
376
1364
Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
111919
Sabha
Singh97
4.10.1956
376

1365

Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
111919

 Sabha Singh
136
10.10.1957
376

1366

Ram
Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
1119169
Sabha Singh
8912.10.1958

376
1367
Ram
1119Nirahoo
7 All. Mewa Lal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
239

Anjor &
Kunwar
Bhadur
Singh
19

7
9.10.1959
376
Nirahoo
1371

Ram
Anjar

111919

59
22.9.1963

376

1372

Prabhakar
Singh &
Sudhakar
Singh
sons
of
Uma
Shankar
Singh

111919

Ghrahoo,
Nirhoo, Nar
Singh
&
Rajendra
76
12.10.1964

11. Annexure No.14 to the writ
petition is the khasara entry of plot no.377,
which are as under:

Khasra
Numbe
r
Fasli
Year
Name
of Asal
Kastkar
Name of
Shikami
Kastkar
Are
a

Khana
Kafiya
t

377

135
7

Ram
Anjor
& Indra
Bahadu
r

1132

377

135
8

Ram
Anjor
& Indra
Bahadu
r
Bhawan
i Prasad

11312

Ram
Anjor
Sonar

"K.W.
Sood"

377

135
9

Ram
Anjor
& Indra
Bahadu
r

1139
Ram
Anjor
Sonar
"K.W.
Sood"
377
136
1

Ram
Anjor
& Indra
Bahadu
r

11312
Ram
Anjor
Sonar
377

136
3
Ram
Anjor
& Indra
Bahadu
r

4212

Ram
Anjor
Sonar
377
136
4 to
136
8

Ram
Anjor

11312
Ram
Anjor
Sonar
12. The finding of fact which has
been recorded by revisional Court with
respect to plot nos.376 & 377 considering
the revenue entry including the khasara
entry which are annexed along with writ
petition as well as quoted above will be
relevant for perusal, which is as under:

"न्र्ार्ालर् श्री जिादाि उपाध्र्ार् उ०स०च० बस्िी
पुिरीक्षि सां० 498 प्रभाकर आनद बिाि िेवालाल आनद
प्रभाकर आनद बिाि निरह
ग्राि िरार्िपुर ििवरपार
परगिा िगर पनिि
ि० हरैर्ा, नजला-बस्िी

10. जहाूँ िक गाटा स० 376 का सांबांध िें िौनिक
साक्ष्र् का सांबांध है केवल निरह नसांह को परीनक्षि करार्ा गर्ा है। जो
स्वर्ां पक्ष्र् है इसनलर्े उिका साक्ष्र् स्विन्त् िही है। उन्होिे 8-574 के बर्ाि िें अ िी आर्ू 30वषा बिाई है नजसका अथा र्ह है
नक जिीदारी नबिास के सिर् वे केवल 8 वषा के थे। उन्होिे नजरह िे
स्वीकार नकर्ा है नक जब उिकी नपिा िे रािअजोर नसांह से िेि
नलर्ा उस सिर् वे िौजुद िही था। इस प्रकार उिके बर्ाि से भी
नशकिी पर िेि लेिे बाि नवलकुल नसद्ध िही होिी। इस प्रकार
िौनिक िथा अनध लेनिि साक्ष्र् नकसी से भी गाटा सां० 376 पर
नशकिी ओर अनधवासर से सीरदार होिे का केस नबलकुल नसद्ध िही
होिा है। ओर अनधिस्थ िर्ार्ालर्ो िे निरहु नसांह आनद को गाटा
सां० 376 की सीरदार और भूनिधर िािकर गलिी की है। वास्िव िें
र्ह भूिण्ड रािअजोर नसांह िथा और बैिािे से प्रभाकर और
सुधाकर इसके भुनिधर हो चुके है।

11. जहाूँ िक गाटा सां० 377 का प्रश्न है 1357
ि० की ििौिी िें र्ह भुिण्ड भी रािअजोर नसह व कुवर बहादुर
की जिीि 6 की आराजी दजा है। 1357ि० से 1379 ि० के
िसरो की उिके दानिल की गई है नजिके अिुसार 1357 ि०
िथा 358 ि० िें नववानदि भुिण्ड स० 377 राि अजोर और
कुवर बहादुर की जिि 6 की आराजी दजा है। और उस पर नकसी
का कोई कलजा दजा िही है। 1359 ि० िें कैनिर्ि के िािे िें
कानवज रािअजोर सोिार बावजूद सूद नलिा हुआ है। 1361 ि०
िे केस िसरे िे भी केप्र्ुन ि के िािे िे कानबज रािअजोर सोिार
व बावजूद सूद नलिा हुआ है। इस सांबांध िे उल्लेििीर् बाि र्ह है
नक 1358 ि० के सांबांध िे दो िसरे कर िकले दानिल की गई है।
नजसिे कैनिर्ि के िािे िें गाटा स० 377 प्राथी का कोई कबजा
दजा िही है नकन्िु दूसरे िे कैनिर्ि के िािे िे रािअजोर सोिार का
कलजा बावजूद सूद 1358 ि० िे भी दजा है र्ह दोिो िकले
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िहसीलदार हरेर् वदार क्रिशः नद० 11-12-63 और 13-2-3
को जारी की गई है। और परस्पर नवरोधी है। इस प्रकार राि अजोर
सुिार कबजा 1361 ि० िक 1381 िक कैनिर्ि के िािे िे
दजा है। 1367 ि० िे इस भूिन्ड पर िेवा का िाि कबजे िे दजा है
और 1368 ि० िें कानबज िेवालाल और रािलाल दजा है। र्ह
इन्द्राज 1372 ि० िक दोहरार्ा गर्ा है। निर 1373 ि० 7 से
1370 ि० िक कबजे का कोई इन्द्राज िही है। एक कच्ची रसीद
दानिल की गई है नजसके द्वारा 27-6-51 को रािअजोर नसह िे
गाटा सां० 372/37 का 8 रु० लगाि वसूल नकर्ा है। और रसीद
पर अपिी अांगुठा निसािी बिाई है। रािअजोर नसह अब िर चुके है।
226बी के िुकदिे िे रािअजोर नसांह के बर्ाि नद० 26-10-65
की प्रानप्त प्रनिनलनप दानिल की गई है नजसिे रािअजोर नसह िे
स्वीकार नकर्ा है नक इस रसीद पर उिकी अगुठा निसािी है। और
र्ह रसीद उन्होिे िेवा के नपिा को दी थी। उजरिे अपिे इस बर्ाि िे
र्ह भी स्वीकार नकर्ा है नक िेवा के अलावा उन्होिे अन्र् नकसी को
रसीद िही दी। इसके आधार पर अनधिस्थ न्र्ार्ालर्ो िे िेवा लाल
िथा उिके नपिा रािअजोर सुिार को रािअजोर नसह द्वारा नसकिी
पर भूनि उठािे की बाि को सही िही िािा है नकन्िु रािअजोर नसांह
का उि साक्ष्र् निम्िनलनिि कारिों से नवश्वासिीर् िही है

1- रािअजोर नसांह िे अपिे उि बर्ाि िे र्ह भी
स्वीकार नकर्ा है नक उन्होिे अभीराजी बिाि उिाशांकर िा िुकदिे
उिाशांकर प्रभाकर और सांधाकर के नपिा को नवरुद्ध गवाही दी है।
इससे र्ह स्पष्ट है नक रािअजरो नसह से िथा पुिरीक्षि करिा गि के
नपिा उिाशांकर नसह से बैिािा के बाद नकसी कारि शत्ुिा हो गई
थी। नजसके िलस्वरूप िि केवल इस िुकदिे िे बनल्क दुसरे
रािअजोर नसह िे उिाशांकर नसह के नवरुद्ध बर्ाि नदर्ा था इससे
स्पष्ट है नक उि वर्ाि पुिरीक्षि करिागि के नपिा से दुश्ििी के
कारि रािअजोर नसांह िे नदर्ा था।

2- 1358 ि० 1359 ि० और 1361 ि० के
िसरे िे िेवालाल िथा उिके नपिा राि अजोर सुिार का कबजा
बावजूद सूद नलिा हुआ है। नजससे स्पष्ट है नक िेवालाल आनद का
कबजा नशकिी का कबजा िही था बनल्क रीकदािा का कलजा
िुिाअहल के साथ था। इस प्रकार रािअजोर नसह का साक्ष्र्
अनभलेिीर् साक्ष्र् से गलि नसद्ध होिा है। और र्ह िथ्र् गलि
सानबि होिे है नक रािअजोर नसह िे नसकिी पर जिीि उठाई थी।

3- स्वांर् िेवालाल िे अपिी नजरह नद० 14-2-74
के अन्ि िें र्ह स्वीकार नकर्ा है नक रािअजोर नसह और उिाशांकर
नसांह के बीच आपस िें बिािे के बाद निलािि अथााि शत्ुिा हो
गई। इस प्रकार स्वांर् िेवालाल के बर्ाि से ही रािअजोर नसांह की
शत्ुिा उिाशांकर से नसद्ध हो जािी है।

4- धारा 220 बी के िुकदिे िे िेवालाल के बर्ाि
नद० 17-2-64 की िकल दानिल की गई है। नजसिें िेवालाल िे
कहा है नक रसीद पर रािसुन्दर नसांह िे उिके साििे अांगुठा लगार्ा
था। नकन्िु जो रसीद दानिल की गई है उस पर रािसुन्दर नसांह की
कोई अगुठा निसािी िही है।

12- उपर्ुि कारिो से िे रािअजोर नसह के बर्ाि
को नवश्वासिीर् िही िाििा। और उि रसीद िरजी नसद्ध होिा है।
उि रसीद के लेिक िथा गवाह रािसोहरि निवारी िथा केशव
प्रसाद निश्र नजिके हस्िाक्षर रसीद पर है को परीनक्षि िही करार्ा
गर्ा है। अिः उि रसीद नसद्ध िही है।

13- जहाां िक िौनिक साक्ष्र् का प्रश्न है िेवा लाल
आनद की ओर से पहले गवाह राि लौट है नजन्होिे 14-2-74 को
बर्ाि नदर्ा है नक उन्हे होश सांभाले केवल 8 वषा हुर्े इसका र्ह
स्पष्ट अथा हुआ नक 1966 के पहले और क्र्ा हुआ। इस सांबांध िे
उिके बर्ाि का कोई िुल्र् िही है। वे र्ह भी कहिे है नक सीवार्
इस िेि के वे गाूँव के अन्र् नकसी िेि का िसरा ि० िही जाििे।
और र्हाूँ िक नक अपिे िेिो के िसरा ि० भी िही जाििे। इससे
स्पष्ट है नक इस गवाह को कोई ही है। और इसका साक्ष्र्
अनवश्वासिीर् है। दूसरे गवाह स्वांर् िेवालाल है जो पक्ष है उसका
साक्ष्र् स्विन्त् िही है। िेवालाल और उिके गवाह रािलाल िे िेि
की जो चौहद्दी बिाई है वह एक दुसरे से िही निलिी। इस प्रकार
दोिो गवाहो के साक्ष्र् एक दुसरे के नवरुद्ध होिे के कारि नवश्वासिीर्
िही है। इसके अनिररि अन्र् कोई स्विन्त् साक्षी इस केस िे पेश
िही नकर्ा गर्ा है।

14. उपर्ुि नववरि से र्ह स्पष्ट है नक नववनदि
भूनि रािअजोर नसांह िे करजा के सूद िें एवज िे राि अजोर सोिार
को दी थी। और इस प्रकार राि बजोर सोिार और उसके पुत्गि
िेवालाल आनद का कलजा केवल कजा देिे वाले िुिाहीि का
अिुिनिपिा कबजा िात् था नजसके आधार पर िेवालाल आनद को
नववानदि भूनि पर कोद अनधकार प्राप्त िही हुआ। नववानदि भूनि
नसकिी पर इि लोग का िही उठाई गई थी क्र्ोनक नसकिी पर भूनि
उढरिक का जो साक्ष्र् है वह नवश्वासिीर् िही है। बनल्क अनभलेिीर्
साक्ष्र् िे सूद पर भूनि नदर्े जािे की बाि को नसद्ध करिा है इसका
दूसरा प्रिाि र्ह है नक 1359 ि० से 1362 ि० की ििौिी की
कोई िकल ऐसी िही दानिल की गई है जीसिे िेवालाल आनद
नववानदि भेनि के नशकिी र्ा अनधवासी अांनकि हो। इससे भी स्पष्ट
है नक र्ह लोग नसकिी र्ा अनधवासी िही थे। 1362 ि० की
ििौिी का िकल िे भी जबनक रािअजोर नसांह के अन्र् भूिण्डो पर
लोगो को अनधवासी से सीरदारी अनधकार नदर्े गर्े है गाटा सां०
367 पर िेवालाल आनद को ि िो अनधवासर िािा गर्ा और ि
कोई अनधकार ही नदर्ा गर्ा। 1362 ि० िे अन्र् अनधवानसर्ो की
िरह िेवालाल आनद िे अनधवासी से सीरदार नजिके नलर्े कोई
आपनत्त िही की और धारा 240 के अन्िगाि कोई कार्ावाही िही
हुई। 1963 िे पुिरीक्षिकिाा गि के बैिािा लेिे के बाद िब
प्रनिउत्तरदािागि िे अपिे को अनधवासी से नसरदार कहिा प्रारांभ
नकर्ा। इस प्रकार नशकिी से अनशवासी और नसरदार होिे का बाि
7 All. Mewa Lal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
241
नबलकुल गलि नसद्ध होिी है। जहाूँ िक वीपरीि कलजे का प्रश्न है
ऐसा कोई केर् प्रनिउत्तरदािागि का िही है। अिः प्रनिउत्तरदािागि
को नववनदि भेनि पर नसरदार िथा भेनिधरी अनधकार देकर
अनधिस्थ न्र्ार्ालर्ों िे गलिी की है। और उसके आदेश निरस्ि
होिे र्ोग्र् है।
आदेश

दोिो पुिरीक्षि स्वीकार कर नलर्े जािे है। िथा
अनधिस्थ न्र्ार्ालर्ो के नििार्ो को निरस्ि करिे हुर्े दोिो भूिण्डों
को पुिरीक्षि करिागि की भूनिधरी घोनषि नकर्ा जािा है। िदिुसार
अनभलेिों िें अिलदरािद की जार्। इस आदेश की एक एक
आदेश की एक एक प्रनि दोिो पत्ावनलर्ो पर रिी जार्।

िद० 2-11-1981

ह० जिादाि उपाध्र्ार्

 उप सांचालक चकबन्दी बस्िी"

13. On the point of entry of 1356
& 1359 fasli the judgment of the full Bench
of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1968
RD 151 (Sonawati and Others Vs. Sri
Ram and Others) will be relevant in which
it has been held that a person cannot
acquire
status
as
'adhivasi'
against
bhumidhar merely by occupying land after
1358 fasli by force. Paragraph nos.9, 10 &
11 of the judgment rendered in Sonawati
(supra) are relevant for perusal, which are
as under:

 "9. The scheme of s. 3 of the U.P.
Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952 is
different from the scheme of s. 20(b) of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act 1 of 1951. Whereas under Act
1 of 1951 the entry is made evidence
without further enquiry as to his right of
the status of the person who is recorded as
an occupant under s. 3 of the U.P. Land
Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952, a
person who claims the status of an asami
or an adhivasi must establish that he was in
"cultivatory possession" of the land during
the year 1359 Fasli. The expression
"cultivatory possession" is not defined in
the Act, but the Explanation clearly implies
that the claimant must have a lawful right
to be in possession of the land, and must
not belong to the classes specified in the
explanation. "Cultivatory possession" to be
recognized for the purpose of the Act must
be lawful, and the whole year 1359 Fasli. A
trespasser who has no right to be in
possession by merely entering upon the
land forcibly or surreptitiously cannot be
said to be a person in "cultivatory
possession" within the meaning of s. 3 of
U.P. Act 31 of 1952. We are of the view
that the Allahabad High Court was in
holding in Ram Krishna v. Bhagwan Baksh
Singh [1961] A.L.J. 301 that a person who
through force inducts himself over and into
some land and succeeds in continuing his
occupation over it cannot be said to be in
cultivatory possession of that land so as to
invest him with the rights of an asami or an
adhivasi, and we are unable to agree with
the subsequent judgment of a Full Bench of
the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoo Mal
v. Muloo and others I.L.R. [1963] All. 751
that occupation by a wrongdoer without
any right to the land is "cultivatory
possession" within the meaning of s. 3 of
the U.P. Act of 31 of 1952.

10. A person who has no right to
occupy land may rely upon his occupation
against a third person who has no better
title, but he cannot set up that right against
the owner of the land. It must be
remembered that by s. 3 of U.P. Act 31 of
1952 the Legislature conferred right upon
persons in possession of land against the
tenure holders, and in the absence of any
express provision, we are unable to hold
that it was intended by the Act to put a
premium upon forcible occupation of land
by lawless citizens. We have no doubt
therefore that by forcibly occupying the
land after 1358 Fasli, Pritam Singh could
not acquire as against the bhumidhar of the
land rights of an adhivasi by virtue of s. 3
of U.P. Act 31 of 1952.
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Counsel for the appellants
contended that the finding recorded by the
First Appellate Court that Pritam Singh
was in "cultivatory possession" in 1359
Fasli was binding upon the High Court in
Second Appeal. For reasons already set
out, possession of a person in wrongful
occupation cannot be deemed cultivatory
possession. Again the Appellate Judge in
arriving at his conclusion ignored very
important evidence on the record, and on
that account also the conclusion was not
binding on the High Court. Pritam Singh's
name was recorded in the khasra for the
year 1359 Fasli as sub-tenant "without
settlement of rent." Pritam Singh did not
offer to give evidence at any stage of the
trial before the Assistant Collector, and it
was not his case that he had entered into
any contact of sub-tenancy with Tota Ram
and Lajja Ram. The entry which records
him as a sub-tenant of Tota Ram and Lajja
Ram for the year 1359 Fasli is on his own
case untrue. There is further no oral
evidence in support of the case of Pritam
Singh that he was in actual "cultivatory
possession" of land and the entry relied
upon by him does not support his case. To
get the benefit of s. 3 of U.P. Act 31 of
1952, it had to be established that Pritam
Singh was in actual cultivatory possession
of the land and that fact is not established
by direct evidence of possession, nor is it
established by the entry relied upon by him.
The conclusion of the learned Appellate
Judge that Pritam Singh was in "cultivatory
possession" was partially founded on the
conclusion recorded by him that in 1356
Fasli Pritam Singh was in possession of the
land. We have already pointed out that in
so concluding he misread the khasra entry
for 1356 Fasli and gave no effect to the
khasra Barahsala which showed that
Pritam Singh was not in possession of the
land till the end of 1358 Fasli. The learned
Judge also inferred that because it was
stated by Sir Ram the first plaintiff and his
witness Maharaj Singh that no crops were
cultivated during the Kharif season and as
the khasra for 1359 Fasli showed that
Bajra was sown in one of the plots in 1359
Fasli and gram was raised in all the plots,
Pritam Singh must have been in possession
as a sub-tenant and must have cultivated
the land in the Kharif season of 1359 Fasli.
This was, in our judgment, a far-fetched
inference. The Appellate Judge also did not
refer to other evidence to which pointed
attention was directed in support of his
conclusion, by the Assistant Collector Agra
: for instance, Banwari Lal, Naib Registrar
examined on behalf of the plaintiffs had
clearly stated that Pritam Singh was not in
possession of the land prior to 1359 Fasli
and that Tota Ram who was examined as a
witness stated that Pritam Singh was not in
possession of the land and he had not given
the land to Pritam Singh on lease, and that
he did not receive rent from Pritam Singh.
We are unable, therefore, to hold that a
conclusion arrived at only from an entry in
the revenue records which does not prima
facie support the case of Pritam Singh, that
he wrongfully trespassed upon the land and
cultivated it may be regarded as conclusive
in Second Appeal. The High Court was, in
our judgment, right in reaching the
conclusion that Pritam Singh was not in
"cultivatory possession" of the land in 1359
Fasli within the meaning of s. 3 of Act 31 of
1952."

14. The procedure for making entries
of sub-tenants and others in Column- 6 of
the Khasra has been provided under
Paragraph no.87 of the U.P. Land Record
Manual, which is as under:

"87. Entries of sub-tenants and
others (Column 6).- (i) In Column 6
7 All. Mewa Lal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
243

of the khasra will be entered the
persons of the following description:

(a) Tenants under permanent
tenure-holders in Agra, Class 16 of the

khatauni.

(b) Tenants of sir, tenant of
khudkasht of 1333-34 Fasli admitted in

1335 Fasli or subsequently and
tenants of khudkasht of not less

than 12 year's standing in 1309
Fasli and still so recorded [in Agra

Class (17) and in Avadh Class
(10) of the khatauni].

(c)
Tenants
under
rent-free
grantees at a favourable rate of rent [in

Agra Class (18) and in Avadh
Class (10-A) of the khatauni].

(d) Sub-tenants [in Agra class
(19); and in Avadh class (11) of the

khatauni].

(e) Occupiers of land without the
consent of the person whose name

is entered in Column 5 of the
khasra [in Agra Class (20) and in

Avadh
Class
(12)
of
the
khatauni].

(ii) In any case in which a person
whose name was recorded in Column 6 in
the preceding year is still entitled to have
his name recorded in the same column, it
would be sufficient to record his name, in
black ink, with the word "badastur" (as
before) appended at the end.

(iii) If there was no entry in
Column 6 of the khasra in the preceding

years and in Lekhpal finds at the
time or partal some person belonging to
one of the classes mentioned in subparagraph (i) in cultivatory occupation of
the land, he will enter in Column 6 in red
ink the name, parentage and rent, if any, of
such person together with his status:

Provided that he shall not record
any such person as belong the classes (a),
(b), (c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (i) unless
he is satisfied by an inquiry from the
parties concerned that a contractual
relation of landholder and tenant exist
between them. If he is not so satisfied, he
shall record the person as belonging to
class (e) pending such inquiry; the Lekhpal
shall note the name and parentage of such
person in the remarks Column of the
khasra.

(iv) If any entry already exists in
Column 6 of the khasra and the Lekhpal
finds at the partal that some person other
than the recorded person is in cultivating
occupation of the land, then following
contingencies may arise:

(a) The recorded person is dead
and the occupier claims as an heir. In this
case the Lekhpal shall proceed as provided
in paragraph 82.

(b) The occupier claims as subtenant of the recorded person. The Lekhpal
shall proceed as provided in paragraph 88.

(c) The occupier claims to be
sajhi or marifatdar of a person belonging
to class (a) or (c) of sub-paragraph (1).
The Lekhpal shall proceed as provided in
paragraph 83. A sajhi of marifatdar of a
parson belonging to class (b), (d) or (e) of
sub-paragraph (i) shall be ignored.

(d) The occupier claims to be
recorded in Column 6 to the exclusion of
the recorded person. The Lekhpal shall
proceed as follows:

(i) If the recorded person belongs
to classes (b), (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph
(i), the Lekhpal will substitute the name of
the actual occupier in place of the name of
the recorded person but he shall not enter
the name in class (b) or class (d) unless the
condition laid down in the proviso to subparagraph (iii) are fulfilled. If he finds that
a contractual relationship has not arisen
between the occupier and the person
entitled to subject he will treat the occupier
as belonging to class (e).
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii)
If
the
recorded-person
belongs to class (a) or (c) of sub-paragraph (i), the Lekhpal shall provisionally
enter in red ink the name of the actual
occupier in the remarks Column of the
khasra and shall proceed, as far as
possible, as laid down in sub-paragraphs
(b) to (d) of paragraph 84, provided that in
a case falling under class (d) the name and
other particulars of the actual occupier
with the words "Qabiz Dawedar" shall be
entered
below
the name
and other
particulars of the person already recorded
in Column 6.

(v) A cross mark shall be made at
the time of rabi partal, in red ink, so as to
occupy the whole space in Column 6
against any plot which has not been held by
person of the classes mentioned in subparagraph (i) in either crop and no entry
shall subsequently be made in the Column
without the written order of the '[Revenue
Inspector] or higher authority. Such an
order if made by the '[Revenue Inspector],
shall be written out by him in the remarks
Column of the khasra and shall be signed
and dated by him."

15. In the instant matter entry
which has been made in the remark
column/ khana kafiyat that is not according
to
the
provisions
contained
under
Paragraph no.87 of the U.P. Record
Manual, as such, no reliance can be placed
upon the entry of the plot nos.376 & 377 as
mentioned in the khasra annexed along
with writ petition as well as quoted in the
earlier paragraph of this judgment in order
to claim Adhivasi right/ Sirdari right.

16. So far as the judgment passed
under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act are concern, the proceedings of the suit
under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act had abated due to consolidation
operation, as such, no reliance can be
placed upon the judgment passed under
Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation has
rightly held that judgment passed under
Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
cannot be relied upon in the consolidation
proceeding due to abatement of the
proceeding. The revisional Court has
however examined the some of the
evidence which were adduced in the suit
under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, which is correct exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H.
Act.

17. The Consolidation Officer and
Settlement Officer of Consolidation have
decided the matter without considering the
provisions of Section 20 of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act as well as the principle laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonawati
(Supra), as such, the orders passed by
Consolidation Officer & Settlement Officer
of Consolidation have been rightly set aside
by revisional Court under Section 48 of
U.P.C.H. Act considering the revenue entry
of the plot in question w.e.f. 1356 fasli as
well as other evidence on record.

18. So far as jurisdiction under
Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is concern, the
legislature has made amendment under
Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act by inserting
explanation-3 with effect from 10.11.1980
by U.P. Act no.3 of 2002 by which power
has been given to revisional Court to
examine
the
correctness,
legality
or
propriety of any order which includes the
power to examine any finding whether of
fact or law as well as re-appreciate any oral
or documentary evidence. In the instant
matter revisional order was passed on
2.11.1981 against the appellate order dated
21.11.1980, as such, amended provisions of
7 All. Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
245
Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act will be
applicable.

19. This Court in the case reported
in 2020 (148) RD 114, Lakshmania Vs.
D.D.C. Deoria and Others has considered
the scope of Section 48 Explanation 3 of
U.P.C.H. Act. Paragraph No.44 of the
judgment rendered by this Court in
Lakshmania (supra) will be relevant for
perusal which is as under:

 "44. In this case, the objections
were filed in the year 1981, and, therefore,
the amended provisions of Section 48,
operative retrospectively, would squarely
apply. Under the amended statute, the
Revisional Court has been conferred with
unique powers by virtue of the added
Explanation 3 to go into the correctness,
legality or propriety of an order passed by
an Authority below, whether on fact or law,
and includes the powers to appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence. Thus, to the
understanding of this Court, in view of the
added Explanation by U.P. Act no. 3 of
2002, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.11.1980, the
Revisional Court is in no manner inhibited
from examining any question of fact or law,
or
appreciating
evidence
whether
documentary or oral, virtually like any
other Court of fact and law. It is a unique
position that the Revisional Authority
enjoys, under Section 48 of the Act,
conventionally not associated with the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction."

20. The plea of Shikami tenant,
Adhivasi right, Sirdari right on the basis of
alleged entry in the revenue record in
respect to plot nos.376 & 377 setup by the
petitioners has failed, as such, respondent
nos.2 & 3 are entitled to be recorded as
bhumidhar on the basis of sale-deed
executed on 31.1.1963 by Ram Anjor
Singh in favour of respondent nos.2 & 3 as
held under the impugned revisional order
dated 2.11.1981.

21. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has not pressed the plea of the
adverse possession, as such, issuance of
P.A.