# Prem Singh & Ors v. Commissioner Agra Division & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1645
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-22
- **Case number:** Writ- C No. 59595 of 2007
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-singh-ors-v-commissioner-agra-division-ors-44620
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Reform Act, 1950 - Section 122-B (4-F) -
Bhumidhari right - Conferment - Provision
not only protect the possession of an
agricultural labourer belonging to S.C./S.T.
category,
but
it
also
confers
nontransferable
bhumidhari
rights
-
An
agricultural labour, otherwise satisfying
the requirements of sub-section (4-F) and
being eligible, is neither obliged nor can be
compelled to obtain a declaration with
regard to these rights which are granted
and conferred by the statute itself. (Para 8)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)

Case relied on :-

## Text

2 All. Prem Singh & Ors. Vs Commissioner Agra Division & Ors.
1645
other order for the interregnum period
permitting
any
suitable
person
to
discharge the duties and responsibilities
of the Chief Engineer.

21. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is accordingly allowed.

22. No order as to costs.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1645

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ- C No. 59595 of 2007

Prem Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner Agra Division & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Sri Radhey
Shyam Yadav, Sri Suresh Chandra Varma.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri V.K. Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar
Srivastava.

A. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reform Act, 1950 - Section 122-B (4-F) -
Bhumidhari right - Conferment - Provision
not only protect the possession of an
agricultural labourer belonging to S.C./S.T.
category,
but
it
also
confers
nontransferable
bhumidhari
rights
-
An
agricultural labour, otherwise satisfying
the requirements of sub-section (4-F) and
being eligible, is neither obliged nor can be
compelled to obtain a declaration with
regard to these rights which are granted
and conferred by the statute itself. (Para 8)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)

Case relied on :-
1. Ramdin Vs Board of Revenue 1994 All LJ
1056.
2. Manorey alias Manohar Vs Board of
Revenue (U.P.) & ors. (2003) 5 SCC 521.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and
Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava for the
fourth respondent. Despite notices having
been issued to the fifth respondent on 02
January 2008, none has appeared on his
behalf. In any case and bearing in mind
the fact that the fifth respondent was only
a complainant, the Court finds no
justification to defer final disposal of the
instant writ petition on that score.

2. The petitioners belonging to the
Scheduled Castes were landless labourers
in possession of the plots in question.
They claimed the benefits conferred by
Section
122-B(4-F)
of
the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 ["the Act"] in terms
of which it was asserted that since they
were in possession on the relevant date
they were entitled to be declared as
Bhumidhars with non transferable rights.
The provisions of Section 122-B(4-F) is
in the following terms:-

"Section
122B
(4F):-
Notwithstanding
anything
in
the
foregoing
sub-section,
where
any
agricultural labourer belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in
occupation of any land vested in a Gaon
Sabha under section 117 (not being land
mentioned
in
section
132)
having
occupied it from before May 13, 2007,
1646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the land so occupied together with
land, if any, held by him from before the
said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami,
does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125
acres), then no action under this section
shall be taken by the Land Management
Committee or the Collector against such
labourer, and he shall be admitted as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
of that land under section 195 and it shall
not be necessary for him to institute a suit
for
declaration
of
his
rights
as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
in that land."
 (emphasis supplied)

3. It appears that the fifth respondent
made a complaint on 22 August 1997
alleging that the petitioners had been
extended the benefits of that provision
even though they were not entitled. By an
ex parte order of 18 November 1998, the
SDM cancelled the earlier orders by
which the benefits of the aforementioned
provision had been extended to the
petitioners. While passing the order
impugned the SDM placed reliance upon
various decisions including that rendered
by the Court in Ramdin v. Board of
Revenue1 to observe that the provisions
of sub-section (4-F) was only confined to
protection of possession and could not be
viewed
as
conferring
title
on
the
petitioners. It becomes significant to note
that apart from a reproduction of the
allegations made by the fifth respondent,
no other independent findings have been
returned by the SDM in respect of the
alleged ineligibility of the petitioners to
the benefits of Section 122-B(4-F).
Although a report of the Lekhpal is
alluded to, it becomes pertinent to note
that the said report has neither been
brought on the record by the respondents
nor has any other evidence been filed to
establish that the petitioners were not in
possession of the land in question on the
relevant date or otherwise ineligible to be
extended the benefit of that provision.

4. Aggrieved by the ex parte order
passed by the SDM, the petitioners
preferred separate revisions before the
Commissioner who connected the same
and
transferred
to
the
Additional
Commissioner for adjudication. That
revision came to be dismissed with the
Additional Commissioner holding that if
it be the case of the petitioners that the
order of 18 November 1998 was ex parte,
the only remedy available to them was to
approach the concerned SDM and apply
for recall. The Additional Commissioner
non suited the petitioners also on the
ground that they had failed to place on the
record a certified copy of the order passed
by the SDM.

5.

Dealing
firstly
with
the
correctness of the view taken by the
Additional Commissioner, this Court is
constrained to observe that the same
clearly rests on reasons which can neither
be countenanced nor accorded judicial
approval. Notwithstanding the fact that
the original order was rendered ex parte, it
was legally permissible for the petitioners
to either apply for recall/restoration or to
assail the order on merits in revision. In
the considered view of this Court, both
avenues were consequently open to be
pursued by the petitioners. The Additional
Commissioner in failing to consider the
revision on merits has clearly committed
not only a manifest illegality but failed to
exercise jurisdiction otherwise conferred
without justifiable cause.

6. Insofar as the non filing of a
certified copy is concerned, before this
2 All. Prem Singh & Ors. Vs Commissioner Agra Division & Ors.
1647
Court it is conceded by learned Standing
Counsel that in revenue proceedings taken
before statutory authorities, the records of
the
subordinate
courts
are
always
summoned for the purposes of facilitating
a final disposal. Viewed in that light, it is
evident that since the original record of
proceedings taken before the SDM was
present, the need for the petitioners to
additionally file a certified copy of that
order was clearly obviated. In any case
the
revision
could
not
have
been
dismissed on this specious ground since
the defect, if at all was curable.

7. That then takes the Court to deal
with the order passed by the SDM. Quite
apart from the fact that the order was
rendered ex parte and without notice to
the petitioners, this Court finds itself
unable to sustain that order on merits
either. As noted above, the SDM placing
reliance upon the judgment of this Court
rendered in Ramdin has erroneously
proceeded to observe and hold that
Section 122-B(4-F) does not vest title on
landless SC/ST agricultural labourers. It
becomes pertinent to note that the
decision in Ramdin was specifically
noticed
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Manorey alias Manohar v. Board of
Revenue (U.P.) And Others2 and
overruled. The decision in Manorey
eloquently
explains
the
basic
and
underlying legislative ethos of Section
122-B(4-F). The Court deems it apposite
to extract the following observations as
entered
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Manorey:-

"8. First, the endeavour should
be to analyze and identify the nature of
the right or protection conferred by subsection (4-F) of Section 122-B. Subsections (1) to (3) and the ancillary
provisions upto sub-section (4-E) deal,
inter alia, with the procedure for eviction
of unauthorized occupants of land vested
in Gaon Sabha. Sub-section (4-F) carves
out an exception in favour of an
agricultural labourer belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
having land below the ceiling of 3.125
acres. Irrespective of the circumstances in
which such eligible person occupied the
land vested in the Gaon Sabha (other than
the land mentioned in Section 132), no
action to evict him shall be taken and
moreover, he shall be deemed to have
been admitted as a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights over the land, provided
he satisfies the conditions specified in the
sub-section. According to the findings of
the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the
Appellate Authority, the appellant does
satisfy the conditions. If so, two legal
consequences follow. Such occupant of
the land shall not be evicted by taking
recourse to sub-sections (1) to (3) of
Section 122-B. It means that the occupant
of the land who satisfies the conditions
under sub-section (4-F) is entitled to
safeguard his possession as against the
Gaon Sabha. The second and more
important right which sub-section (4-F)
confers on him is that he is endowed with
the rights of a bhumidhar with nontransferable
rights.
The
deeming
provision has been specifically enacted as
a measure of agrarian reform, with a
thrust on socio-economic justice. The
statutorily conferred right of bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights finds its echo
in clause (b) of Section 131. Any person
who acquires the rights of bhumidhar
under
or
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the Act, is recognized under
Section 131 as falling within the class of
bhumidhar. The right acquired or accrued
under sub-section (4-F) is one such right
1648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that falls within the purview of Section
131(b).

9. Thus, sub-section (4-F) of
Section 122-B not merely provides a
shield to protect the possession as opined
by the High Court, but it also confers a
positive right of bhumidhar on the
occupant of the land satisfying the criteria
laid
down
in
that
sub-section.
Notwithstanding the clear language in
which the deeming provision is couched
and the ameliorative purpose of the
legislation, the learned Single Judge of
the High Court had taken the view in
Ramdin V. Board of Revenue (followed
by the same learned Judge in the instant
case) that the bhumidhari rights of the
occupant contemplated by sub-section (4F) can only blossom out when there is a
specific allotment order by the Land
Management Committee under Section
198. According to the High Court, the
deeming provision contained in subsection (4-F) cannot be overstretched to
supersede the other provisions in the Act
dealing specifically with the creation of
the right of bhumidhar. In other words,
the view of the High Court was that a
person
covered
by
the
beneficial
provision contained in sub-section (4-F)
will have to still go through the process of
allotment under Section 198 even though
he is not liable for eviction. As a corollary
to this view, it was held that the occupant
was not entitled to seek correction of
revenue records, even if his case falls
under sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B.
We hold that the view of the High Court
is clearly unsustainable. It amounts to
ignoring the effect of a deeming provision
enacted with a definite social purpose.
When
once
the
deeming
provision
unequivocally provides for the admission
of the person satisfying the requisite
criteria laid down in the provision as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
under Section 195, full effect must be
given to it. Section 195 lays down that the
Land Management Committee, with the
previous
approval
of
the
Assistant
Collector in-charge of the sub-division,
shall have the right to admit any person as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to
any vacant land (other than the land
falling under Section 132) vested in the
Gaon Sabha. Section 198 prescribes "the
order of preference in admitting persons
to land under Sections 195 and 197". The
last part of sub-section (4-F) of Section
122-B confers by a statutory fiction the
status of bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights on the eligible occupant of the land
as if he has been admitted as such under
Section 195. In substance and in effect,
the deeming provision declares that the
statutorily recognized bhumidhar should
be as good as a person admitted to
bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read
with other provisions. In a way, subsection (4-F) supplements Section 195 by
specifically granting the same benefit to a
person coming within the protective
umbrella of that sub-section. The need to
approach the Gaon Sabha under Section
195 read with Section 198 is obviated by
the deeming provision contained in subsection (4-F). We find no warrant to
constrict the scope of the deeming
provision.

10.
That
being
the
legal
position, there is no bar against an
application being made by the eligible
person coming within the four corners of
sub-section (4-F) to effect necessary
changes in the revenue record. When once
the claim of the applicant is accepted, it is
the bounden duty of the concerned
Revenue Authorities to make necessary
entries in revenue records to give effect to
the statutory mandate. The obligation to
2 All. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1649
do so arises by necessary implication by
reason of the statutory right vested in the
person coming within the ambit of subsection (4-F). The lack of specific
provision for making an application under
the Act is no ground to dismiss the
application as not maintainable. The
revenue records should naturally fall in
line with the rights statutorily recognized.
The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore
within his rights to allow the application
and direct the correction of the records.
The Board of Revenue and the High
Court should not have set aside that order.
The fact that the Land Management
Committee of Gaon Sabha had created
lease hold rights in favour of the
respondents herein is of no consequence.
Such lease, in the face of the statutory
right of the appellant, is non est in the eye
of law and is liable to be ignored."

8. On a consideration of the
principles so enunciated, it is manifest
that sub-section (4-F) not only protects
the possession of an agriculturual labourer
belonging to the SC/ST category, it also
confers
non-transferable
bhumidhari
rights on eligible occupants. It is thus a
provision which not only enables the
agricultural labourer belonging to the
SC/ST category to protect his possession
over the land, but to also claim title over
the same by virtue of the provisions made
in that section. An agriculturual labourer,
otherwise satisfying the requirements of
sub-section (4-F) and being eligible, is
neither obliged nor can be compelled to
obtain a declaration with regard to these
rights which are granted and conferred by
the
statute
itself.
Manorey
further
commands the revenue authorities to
ensure that the revenue records are
brought in line and in tune with the rights
so conferred in order to give effect to the
legislative mandate. The SDM was
consequently incorrect in holding that no
title stood vested in the petitioners.

9. It would be apposite to reiterate
that the SDM also does not allude to any
evidence which may have established that
the petitioners were not in possession of
the land in question on the relevant date
or were otherwise ineligible. On an
overall conspectus of the aforesaid facts,
this Court finds itself unable to sustain the
orders impugned.

10. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed. The impugned orders dated 18
November 1998 and 31 May 2007 are
consequently quashed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1649

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ- C No. 18094 of 2004

J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ritvik Upadhya, Sri V.K. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri P.K. Pandey, Sri Sunita Jhingan

A. Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 -
Sick
Industrial
Companies
(Special
Provisions) Act, 1985 - S. 32 - Levy of
penalty and damages - Provision of the
Scheme as sanctioned in terms of