# Ram Swaroop v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 412
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3003820 of 1989
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-swaroop-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52274
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 - Section 18 -
Settlement
of
certain
lands
with
intermediaries
or
cultivators
as
Bhumidhar. All lands held by a groveholder, on the date immediately preceding
the date of vesting, shall be deemed to be
settled by the State Government with
such grove-holder, who shall be entitled
to take or retain possession thereof as a
Bhumidhar - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, S. 11(2) - U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901, S. 57 - Presumption as
to entries. All entries in the record-ofrights shall be presumed to be true until
the contrary is proved - U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, S. 27 - Section 27(2) of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
provides that all entries in the records of
rights shall be presumed to be true until
the contrary is proved.

B. Petitioner application u/s 11(2) of the
Ceiling Act, was dismissed on the ground
that the land continued to be recorded in
the name of Rana Uma Nath Bux Singh,
and thereafter the name of his heir Rana
Swayambar Singh was recorded in the
new revenue record of rights prepared u/s
27(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act on CH Form 45,
and the petitioner had not challenged the
entry.
When
the
land
in
question
continued to be recorded in the name of
Rana
Swayambar Singh
without
any
protest by the petitioner, the Ceiling
authorities did not commit any illegality in
passing the order whereby the land in
question was declared to be surplus land
of the tenure holder Rana Swayambar
Singh. Solitary evidence of possession
relied upon by the petitioner was CH Form
2-A,
which
was
prepared
after
the
commencement
of
consolidation
operations in the year 1963. Entry made in
CH Form 2-A does not establish that the
petitioner was in possession of the land in
dispute
'on
the
date
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
vesting.'
Subsequent entry made in CH Form 45,
which is the new record of rights, shall be
presumed to be correct, and the burden to
prove that the entry in CH Form 45 is
incorrect would lie on the petitioner, and
the petitioner has failed to discharge this
burden (Para 15).

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appended to Section 5(6) of the Ceiling Act
and, therefore, this will be a transfer of land
made after the twenty-fourth day of Jan.,
1971, which is liable to be ignored and not
taken into account while determining the
surplus land of the tenure holder.

19. It is also significant to note that
the plea taken by the State in the writ
Petition that the proceedings under Section
229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act were
collusive, remains uncontroverted.

20. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, I am of the considered view that
the Prescribed Authority had rightly held
that the claimants had colluded with the
tenure holders and for this reason, the
tenure holder Murlidhar Hakim did not
contest the appeals and the appellate Court
allowed the appeals and declared the
Seerdars of the land in question. The order
passed by the Additional Commissioner
was not an order on the merits of the case
and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, it did not bar the
jurisdiction of the Ceiling Authorities to
proceed
under
the
Ceiling
Act
in
accordance with the law.

21. The claimants had not filed any
documentary evidence in the shape of Khatauni
etc. before the Prescribed Authority to prove
their claims and they had based their claims
merely on the ex-parte orders passed by the
Additional Commissioner.

22. In spite of a specific direction
issued by this Court directing the private
respondents to bring on record the orders
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
rejecting the claim of the opposite parties to be
sirdar of the land in question on the basis of
their adverse possession and the ex-parte
judgment and decree/order passed by the
appellate authority, they have not brought the
same on record.

23. In these circumstances, there
appears to be no illegality in the order dated
24.02.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority
rejecting the claim of the private respondents
based on the plea of adverse possession.

24. The order dated 23.05.1998 passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow
allowing Appeal No. 287/291/92-93 and setting
aside the order dated 24.02.1993 passed by the
Prescribed Authority, is unsustainable in law
and is liable to be quashed.

25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
stands allowed. The order dated 23.05.1998
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow
allowing Appeal No. 287/291/92-93 is quashed.
The order dated 24.02.1993 passed by the
Prescribed Authority Ceiling / Additional
Collector, Kheri in Case No. 266/92/11/39/14
under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act is
restored and affirmed.

26. The parties will bear their own
costs of litigation.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 412
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 3003820 of 1989

Ram Swaroop ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner:
7 All. Ram Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
413
Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shishir Pradhan

A. U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 - Section 18 -
Settlement
of
certain
lands
with
intermediaries
or
cultivators
as
Bhumidhar. All lands held by a groveholder, on the date immediately preceding
the date of vesting, shall be deemed to be
settled by the State Government with
such grove-holder, who shall be entitled
to take or retain possession thereof as a
Bhumidhar - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, S. 11(2) - U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901, S. 57 - Presumption as
to entries. All entries in the record-ofrights shall be presumed to be true until
the contrary is proved - U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, S. 27 - Section 27(2) of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
provides that all entries in the records of
rights shall be presumed to be true until
the contrary is proved.

B. Petitioner application u/s 11(2) of the
Ceiling Act, was dismissed on the ground
that the land continued to be recorded in
the name of Rana Uma Nath Bux Singh,
and thereafter the name of his heir Rana
Swayambar Singh was recorded in the
new revenue record of rights prepared u/s
27(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act on CH Form 45,
and the petitioner had not challenged the
entry.
When
the
land
in
question
continued to be recorded in the name of
Rana
Swayambar Singh
without
any
protest by the petitioner, the Ceiling
authorities did not commit any illegality in
passing the order whereby the land in
question was declared to be surplus land
of the tenure holder Rana Swayambar
Singh. Solitary evidence of possession
relied upon by the petitioner was CH Form
2-A,
which
was
prepared
after
the
commencement
of
consolidation
operations in the year 1963. Entry made in
CH Form 2-A does not establish that the
petitioner was in possession of the land in
dispute
'on
the
date
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
vesting.'
Subsequent entry made in CH Form 45,
which is the new record of rights, shall be
presumed to be correct, and the burden to
prove that the entry in CH Form 45 is
incorrect would lie on the petitioner, and
the petitioner has failed to discharge this
burden (Para 15).

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lal Behari & ors. Vs Ram Adhar: 1987 RD 206
= 1985 SCC OnLine All 1197

2. Gurmukh Singh & ors. Vs Dy. Director of
Consolidation/A.D.M. (F. and R.) & ors..: 1997
RD 276

3. Shafir Vs District Judge, Gonda & ors.: 1987
R.D. 113

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Mohammad
Aslam Khan Advocate, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner has
challenged validity of an order 28.10.1987
passed
by
the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Finance
and
Revenue),
Raebareli in Case No. 5 (85-86) under
Section 11(2) read with Section 14(3) of
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to
as
'the
Ceiling
Act'),
whereby
the
application filed by the petitioner under
Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act had been
rejected. The petitioner has also challenged
validity of an order dated 15.03.1989
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow,
dismissing Appeal No. 21(87-88) filed by
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner under Section 13 of the
Ceiling Act against the aforesaid order
dated 28.10.1987.

3. It has been pleaded in the writ
petition that the petitioner's father had
planted a grove on land bearing plot no.
150 (of third settlement), new plot number
whereof is 61/3, having an area of 1 Bigha,
2 Biswa and 10 Biswansi situated in
Village Alipur Khalso, Pargana, Tehsil and
District Raebareli with the permission of
Rana Uma Nath Bux Singh - the then
proprietor
of
Khajoorgaon
Estate.
Consolidation proceedings commenced in
the village in the year 1963 and after
survey, a Khasra Chakbandi was prepared
on C.H. Form 2-A, wherein it is mentioned
that Ram Swaroop Baghdar was found in
possession whereas Rana Uma Nath Singh
was recorded as the chief tenant of the land
in question.

4. The petitioner claims that when
C.H. Form 2-A mentioned that he was
found in possession of the land as the grove
holder, the Assistant Consolidation Officer
ought to have referred the matter to the
Consolidation Officer, but it was not done
and no notice was sent to the petitioner.
The land in question was included in the
surplus land of Raja Khajoorgaon under the
Ceiling Act. The petitioner claims that the
land being in the nature of grove and in
possession of the petitioner, it could not
have been declared to be surplus land of
Raja Khajoorgaon. The land was declared
as surplus and was allotted to the opposite
party no. 8 without the petitioner having
any knowledge of the proceedings under
the Ceiling Act. Upon coming to know
about this fact, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 198(4) of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act for cancellation of the lease deed
granted in favour of opposite party no. 8. A
commission
was
issued
in
those
proceedings
and
the
commissioner
submitted a report stating that 10 Mango
trees aged between 50-75 years, a Mahua
tree aged about 50 years, a Ber tree aged
about 5 years and 3 Neem trees aged about
5 to 25 years were standing on the land in
question. No crop had been sown on the
land and the petitioner's payaal ki khahi
was
found
there.
However,
as
the
proceedings under Section 198(4) of the
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act were not maintainable,
the petitioner did not pursue the same and
the proceedings were dismissed for want of
prosecution.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
objections under Section 11(2) of the
Ceiling Act along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act and he
prayed for cancellation of the patta granted
in favour of the opposite party no. 8 and the
order declaring the land in question to be
surplus land of Rana Swayambar Singh.

6. The opposite party no. 8 filed
objections stating that the land in question
had been leased to him. In support of this
submission, the opposite party no. 8 filed a
copy of the relevant extract of khataunis of
Village Alipur Khalso and a copy of C.H.
Form 41, which showed that the old plot
number of land bearing Gata No. 150 is
61/3 and it was recorded that the land was
in possession of Ramau son of Matau. It is
recorded in khatauni for the year 1387-92
Fasli that the land had been declared
surplus by the Prescribed Authority.

7.

The
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Finance
and
Revenue),
Raebareli
rejected
the
petitioner's
application by means of the impugned
order dated 28.10.1987, holding that the
7 All. Ram Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
415
petitioner could not produce any evidence
to establish his possession in respect of the
land in dispute. He had not submitted any
objections
in
proceedings
under
the
Consolidation of Holdings Act during
consolidation proceedings and, therefore,
his claim regarding ownership is barred by
the provisions of Section 49 of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
filed an Appeal No. 21 (87-88) against the
aforesaid order dated 28.10.1987, which
has been dismissed by means of a judgment
and order dated 15.03.1989 passed by the
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

9. The petitioner had contended
before the appellate court that he had not
filed any objection during consolidation
proceedings because the land was in the
shape of a grove and there was no dispute
at that time. The appellate court found that
as the petitioner had not filed any objection
during consolidation proceedings, his claim
regarding title is barred by Section 49 of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

10. While assailing the validity of
the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner's name was recorded as the
grove holder in C.H. Form 2-A and,
therefore, the grove land stood vested in the
petitioner by virtue of the provisions
contained in Sections 18 and 21 of the
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. He has relied upon
decisions of this Court in the case of Lal
Behari and others versus Ram Adhar:
1987 RD 206 = 1985 SCC OnLine All
1197, Gurmukh Singh and Ors. versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation/A.D.M. (F.
and R.) and Ors.: 1997 RD 276 and
Shafir versus District Judge, Gonda and
others: 1987 R.D. 113.

11. In Lal Behari and others
versus Ram Adhar, this Court held that: -

 "6. It is well settled that under
Section 57 of the Land Revenue Act the
entries in the current records of the latest
settlement are presumed to be correct
unless
rebutted
by
cogent
evidence.
However, in this connection the question
which sometimes arises for consideration
is, whether the entries made in the
subsequent settlements, which are different
with those of the earlier settlements, would
stand rebutted by the earlier settlement
entries or not? It goes without saying that
at each settlement the entries are made in
accordance with the prescribed procedure
contained in Chapter IV of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act. Therefore, the entries in the
record-of-rights prepared in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter IV would be
presumed to be true unless the contrary is
proved as provided under Section 57 of the
Act. Thus, where the entries made at the
earlier and subsequent settlements are
conflicting, the entries made in subsequent
settlement can be given preference with
those of the previous settlement unless the
contrary is proved by cogent and strong
evidence. During the course of every
subsequent settlement proceeding the then
existing entries in the record-of-right are
checked and verified and the same are
corrected, if found to be wrong, after
following the prescribed procedure under
Chapter IV of the Land Revenue Act. Thus,
the entries at the latest settlement would be
presumed to be correct and the earlier
conflicting settlement entries would not be
enough evidence to rebut the correctness of
the subsequent settlement entries. The
entries in the record of rights of the latest
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
settlement would, therefore, be presumed to
be correct unless rebutted by cogent
evidence and the same cannot be discarded
merely on the ground of conflicting entries
in the earlier settlement records."

(Emphasis added)

12. In Gurmukh Singh and Ors.
(Supra) it was held that: -

 "5. It is clear from para 102-C of
the Land Records Manual that the entries
will have no evidenciary value if they are
not made in accordance with the provisions
of Land Records Manual. There is
presumption of correctness of the entries
provided it is made in accordance with the
relevant provision of Land Records Manual
and secondly, in case where a person is
claiming adverse possession against the
recorded tenure holder and he denies that
he had not received any P.A. 10 or he had
no knowledge of the entries made in the
revenue records, the burden of proof is
further upon the person claiming adverse
possession to prove that the tenure holder
was duly given notice in prescribed form...

 6. In Jamuna
Prasad v. Dy.
Director of Consolidation, Agra, 1981 RD
112, this court repelled the contention that
the burden of proof was upon the person
who challenges the correctness of the
entries. It was observed:-

 "Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
argued
that
there
was a
presumption of correctness about the
entries in the revenue records and the onus
lay upon the respondent to prove that the
entries showing the petitioner's possession
had not been in accordance with law. This
contention is untenable. Firstly, it is not
possible for a party to prove a negative
fact. Secondly, the question as to whether
the notice in form P.A. 10 was issued and
served upon the petitioner also is a fact
which
was
within
his
exclusive
knowledge."

 "Petitioner's contention that the
burden lay on the respondents to disprove
the authenticity and destroy the probative
value of the entry of possession cannot be
accepted. In my opinion, where possession
is asserted by a party who relies mainly on
the entry of adverse possession in his
favour and such possession is denied by the
recorded tenure holder, the burden is on
the former to establish that the entries in
regard to his possession were made in
accordance with law."

13 . Section 57 of the U. P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 provides as follows: -

 "Section 57 - Presumption as to
entries

 All entries in the record-of-rights
prepared in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter shall be presumed to be
true until the contrary is proved ; and all
decisions under this Chapter in cases of
dispute shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (3) of section 40, be binding on
all Revenue Courts in respect of the
subject-matter of such disputes; but no
such entry or decision shall affect the right
of any person to claim and establish in the
Civil Court any interest in land which
requires to be recorded in the registers
prescribed by Section 32."

14. However, the petitioner's name
was not recorded in any record of
settlement
prepared
under
the
Land
Revenue
Act.
The
Consolidation
proceedings commenced in the village in
7 All. Ram Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
417
the year 1963 and it was mentioned in the
Khasra Chakbandi prepared on C.H. Form
2-A that Ram Swaroop Baghdar was found
in possession whereas Rana Uma Nath
Singh was recorded as the chief tenant of
the land in question. Khasra Chakbandi is
prepared under Rule 21 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954,
which provides for recording the findings
of the field to field partal (enquiry) carried
out by the Consolidator. However, after
preparation of Khasra Chakbandi, the
Assistant Consolidation Officer checks the
same under Rule 24 and thereafter the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
in
consultation
with
the
Consolidation
Committee prepares the 'Statement of
Principles' under Rule 24-A, which is
published and objections against the same
are invited under Section 9 of the U. P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act.
The
Assistant Consolidation Officer decides the
objections and ultimately the Khatauni is
prepared
under
Section
27
of
the
Consolidation of Holdings Act on CH
Form 45, which is the new revenue record
of rights.

15. In the Khatauni prepared under
Section 27 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act on C.H. Form 45, the
petitioner's name does not find any
mention. Therefore, even as per the
principle of law laid down in Lal Behari,
the subsequent entry made in CH Form 45,
which is the new record of rights, shall be
presumed to be correct and as per the law
laid down in Gurmukh Singh (Supra), the
burden to prove that the entry in CH Form
45 is incorrect, would lie on the petitioner
and the petitioner has failed to discharge
this burden.

16. In Shafir v. District Judge,
Gonda, 1985 SCC OnLine All 220 : 1987
RD 113, this Court relied upon an earlier
decision and held that:

 "8. In
Dilbagh
Singh's
case
(Dilbagh Singh v. State of U.P., 1978
All.L.J. 717) it was held by the Division
Bench that Section 11(2) permits a tenureholder to file objections. Such tenureholders may be those who have been served
with a notice and a statement under Section
10(2). It also includes tenure-holders who
have not been given or served with any
such notice or statement. The construction
put by the Full Bench also embraces
persons who claim to be tenure-holders
and who having come to know of the
declaration of their land as surplus land of
some other person wish to challenge that
declaration or notification thereof in the
gazette under Section 14. They are all
entitled to file an objection under Section
11(2) and get an adjudication thereon as
required by Section 12...."

17. The petitioner's objections
have not been rejected as not maintainable
on the ground that he was not recorded as a
tenure holder and the same have been
entertained an decided on their merits.
Therefore, the principle of law laid down in
Dilbagh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
1978 SCC OnLine All 393, and followed in
Shafir (Supra) has been followed in the
present case.

18. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has paced reliance upon the
provisions contained in Sections 18 and 21
of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950, which are
being reproduced below: -

 "18. Settlement of certain lands
with intermediaries or cultivators as
Bhumidhar.-(1) Subject to the provisions
of Sections 10, 15, 16 and 17, all lands-
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (a) in possession of or held or
deemed to be held by an intermediary as
sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove,

 (b) held as a grove by, or in the
personal cultivation of a permanent lessee
in Avadh,

 (c)held by a fixed-rate tenant or a
rent-free grantee as such, or

 (d) held as such by-

 (i) an occupancy tenant,

 (ii)
a
hereditary
tenant,
possessing the right to transfer the holding
by sale,

 (iii) a tenant on Patta Dawami or
Istamrari referred to in Section 17,

 (e) held by a grove holder,

 on
the
date
immediately
preceding the date of vesting shall be
deemed to be settled by the State
Government
with
such
intermediary, lessee, tenant, grantee or
grove-holder, as the case may be, who
shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
be entitled to take or retain possession as a
bhumidhar thereof.

 (2) Every person belonging the
class mentioned in Section 3 or sub-section
(2) of Section 3-A of the United Provinces
Agricultural
Tenants
(Acquisition
of
Privileges) Act, 1949 (U.P. Act X of 1949),
who has been granted the declaration
referred to in Section 6 of the said Act in
respect of any holding or share thereof
shall,
unless
the
declaration
is
subsequently set aside, be deemed to be the
bhumidhar of the holding or the share in
respect of which the declaration has been
made and continues in force.

 (3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained
in
the
United
Provinces
Agricultural
Tenants
(Acquisition
of
Privileges) Act, 1949 (U.P. Act X of
1949), any declaration granted under
Section 6 of the said Act in favour of a
tenant whom sub-section (2) of Section 10
applies, shall be and is hereby cancelled
and the amount deposited by him under
Section 3 or 6 of the said Act shall, after
deducting the amount which might have
been paid or be payable by the State
Government to his landholder under
Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act, be
refunded to the person entitled in such
manner as may be prescribed."

 * * *

 21. Non-occupancy tenants, subtenants
of
grovelands
and
tenant's
mortgagees to be asamis.-

 (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) a non-occupancy tenant of an
intermediary's groveland,

 (b) a sub-tenant of a groveland,

 (c) a sub-tenant referred to in the
proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 of
the
United
Provinces
Tenancy
(Amendment) Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of
1947),

 (d) a
mortgagee
in
actual
possession from a person belonging to any
of the classes mentioned in clauses (b) to
7 All. Ram Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 or
clauses (i) to (vii) and (ix) of Section 19,

 (e) a non-occupancy tenant of
pasture land or of land covered by water
and used for the purpose of growing
singhara or other produce or of land in the
bed of a river and used for casual or
occasional cultivation,

 (f) a non-occupancy tenant of
land declared by the State Government by
notification in the Gazette, to be intended
or set apart for taungya plantation, or

 (g) a tenant of land, which the
State Government has, by a notification in
the Gazette declared to be part of tract of
shifting or unstable cultivation,

 (h) a tenant of sir of land
referred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (i)
of the Explanation under Section 16, a
sub-tenant referred to in sub-clause (ii)
of clause (a) of Section 20 or an occupant
referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (b)
of the said section where the landholder
or
if
there
are
more
than
one
landholders, all of them were person or
persons belonging-

 (a) if the land was let out or
occupied prior to the ninth day of April,
1946, both on the date of letting a
occupation, as the case may be, and on the
ninth day of April, 1946, and

 (b) if the land was let out or
occupied on or after the ninth day of
April, 1946, on the day of letting or
occupation,

 to any one or more of the classes
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section
157;
 (i) a lessee holding under a lease
from a court under sub-section (1) of
Section 252 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939,

 shall be deemed to be an asami
thereof.

 Explanation.-The
expression
"taungya plantation" means the system of
afforestation in which the plantation of
trees is, in the earlier stages, done
simultaneously with the cultivation of
agricultural crops which ceases when the
trees so planted begin to form a canopy
rendering the cultivation of agricultural
crops impossible.

 (2) Occupants of groveland.-
Every person, who, on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting was a person
recorded, in the manner stated in clause (b)
of Section 20, as occupant of any grove
land, shall be called an asami of the land
and shall, subject to the provisions of this
Act, be entitled to take or retain possession
thereof as an asami from year to year."

19. The grove land in question
could have vested in the petitioner only in
accordance with the provisions of Section
18 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act if the land was
held by him as a grove holder on the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting.
The solitary evidence of possession relied
upon by the petitioner is the CH-Form 2-A,
which was prepared after commencement
of consolidation operations in the year
1963. The entry made in CH Form 2-A
does not establish that the petitioner was in
possession of the land in dispute 'on the
date immediately preceding the date of
vesting'. Therefore, the material placed by
the petitioner does not establish fulfillment
of the conditions of Section 18 of the
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act.
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20. So far as the submission based
on Section 21 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. is
concerned, the petitioner merely claims that
he had planted trees with the permission of
the proprietor of the land and he does not
claim himself to be any kind of tenant
referred to in Section 21 or a mortgagee
and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim
any right on the basis of the provisions
contained
in
Section
21
of
the
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act also.

21. Even in the Khasra prepared on
C.H. Form 2-A after commencement of the
consolidation operations in the year 1963,
the name of the tenure holder of the land in
dispute was mentioned as Rana Syambar
Singh. In spite of having been found in
possession of the land in question, the
petitioner was not mentioned as the tenure
holder of the land in the Khasra. The
petitioner did not feel aggrieved by this
entry and it is the petitioner's own case that
as he was recorded as the person in
possession of the land, he did not file any
objections.
Subsequently
in
the
new
revenue record of rights prepared on CH
Form-45,
Rana
Syambar
Singh
was
recorded as the tenure holder and the
petitioner's name did not find any mention
and the petitioner did not challenge this
entry also.

22. When the land in question
continued to be recorded in the name of
Rana Swayambar Singh without any protest
by the petitioner, the Ceiling authorities did
not commit any illegality in passing the
order dated 29.03.1979 whereby the land in
question was declared to be surplus land of
the tenure holder Rana Swayambar Singh.

23. After declaration of the land
as surplus land of Rana Swyambar Singh,
its possession was taken and the land was
allotted to the opposite party no. 8. In the
year 1986, the petitioner filed a suit for
cancellation of the lease deed executed in
favour of the opposite party no. 8, but he
allowed it to be dismissed for want of
prosecution on 26.05.1986. '

24. Although the commission
report submitted in proceedings under
Section
198(4)
of
U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act
mentioned that 10 Mango trees aged
between 50-75 years, a Mahua tree aged
about 50 years, a Ber tree aged about 5
years and 3 Neem trees aged about 5 to
25 years were standing on the land in
question, no crop had been sown on the
land and the petitioner's payaal ki khahi
was found there, this status was of the
date of commission and not of the date of
vesting. Moreover, the proceedings under
Section 198(4) were dismissed for want
of prosecution and this report was not
accepted. Therefore, the petitioner would
not get any benefit from the observations
recorded in the commission report.

25. Thereafter the petitioner had
filed his objections/application under
Section 11 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1960,
claiming that he had been found in
possession of the land and his name had
been recorded as 'Baghdar Qabiz' in CH
Form 2-A. However, the land continued
to be recorded in the name of Rana Uma
Nath Bux Singh, who had died about 50
years' ago and thereafter the name of his
heir
Rana
Swayambar
Singh
was
recorded in the Khatauni prepared on C.H.
Form 45.

26. Section 27 (2) of the U. P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act provides
that all entries in the records of rights
prepared in accordance with the provisions
7 All. Pramit Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
421
of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be
true until the contrary is proved.

27. Section 49 of the U. P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act provides
that: -

 "49.
Bar
to
Civil
Court
jurisdiction.-Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law Courts for the
time being in force, the declaration and
adjudication of rights of tenure-holder in
respect of land, lying in an area, for which
a notification has been issued under subsection (2) of Section 4, or adjudication of
any other right arising out of consolidation
proceedings and in regard to which a
proceeding could or ought to have been
taken under this Act, shall be done in
accordance with the provisions of this Act
and no Civil or Revenue Court shall
entertain any suit or proceeding with
respect to rights in such land or with
respect to any other matters for which a
proceeding could or ought to have been
taken under this Act:

 Provided that nothing in this
section
shall
preclude
the
Assistant
Collector from initiating proceedings under
Section 122-B of
the U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(U.P. Act 1 of 1951) in respect of any land,
possession over which has been delivered
or deemed to be delivered to a Gram Sabha
under or in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.

28. In spite of the aforesaid
statutory provision barring the jurisdiction
of civil and revenue Courts, the petitioner
had filed the application under Section
11(2) of the Ceiling Act, which has rightly
been dismissed on the ground that the land
continued to be recorded in the name of
Rana Uma Nath Bux Singh, who had died
about 50 years' ago and thereafter the
name of his heir Rana Swayambar Singh
was recorded in the Khatauni, which is
the new revenue record of rights prepared
under Section 27(1) of the U. P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act on C.H.
Form 45 and the petitioner had not
challenged this entry..

29. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, there is no illegality in the order
28.10.1987 passed by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
Raebareli
rejecting
the
petitioner's
application under Section 11(2) of the
Ceiling Act, or in the order dated
15.03.1989 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow, dismissing the Appeal
filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid
order dated 28.10.1987.

30. The Writ Petition lacks merit
and the same is dismissed. Costs made
easy.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 421
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6929 of 2024

Pramit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Naushad, Rajiv Sisodia

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.