Allahabad High Court
Dargahi vs D.D.C. And Others on 5 September, 2023
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175168 Reserved on 24.08.2023 Delivered on 05.09.2023 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 48 CASE :- WRIT - B No. - 2561 of 1976 Dargahi and others ----- Petitioners Through : Sri Arun Kumar, Adv. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others ----- Respondents Through : Sri Sanjay Kumar Ray, Standing Counsel Sri A.P. Tiwari, Adv. ****** CORAM : HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Litigation Before Commencement of Consolidation Proceedings
1. It was not seriously disputed by rival parties that land in dispute is Plot No. 2157, area 3.74 acres, corresponding old No. 2023 and 728 in 1292 Fasli in Village Bari Gaon Tappa Bankat, Pargana Unwal, Tehsil Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur and predecessors in interest of petitioners have planted trees with permission of then Zamindar (predecessors-in-interest of contesting-respondents).
2. In the year 1887 a suit was filed by predecessors in interest of petitioners against then Zamindar which was decreed in terms of a compromise on 07.02.1887. It was accepted that 62 trees belongs to Nohar, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners.
3. In the year 1911, lots were prepared, wherein predecessors in interest of petitioners got 5/9 share, whereas predecessors-in-interest of respondents got 4/9 shares. Thereafter the village was brought under consolidation proceedings. A dispute still left, whether share was limited to number of trees or it has included the land also as well as its legal effect, if any.
4. A suit was filed which was dismissed. Appeal thereof was allowed and second appeal against appellate order was abeted on 28.09.1961.
Litigation After Commencement of Consolidation Proceedings
5. On commencement of consolidation proceedings, petitioners were recorded as co-bhumidhars alongwith contesting-respondents. During consolidation proceedings Respondents-3 and 9 have filed objections under Section 9(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") claiming exclusive bhumidhari right.
6. The Consolidation Officer has rejected objections vide order dated 23.04.1973 and claim of petitioners being co-owner was accepted. The Consolidation Officer has framed issues and relevant findings thereon are reproduced as under:
"उपरोक्त सबूत से यह स्पष्ट है कि फरिकैन के पूर्वजों का समझौता 1887 में हो गया तथा तथा यह बाग थी। यद्यपि समझौते में जमीन नहीं मिली थी। लेकिन जो बाग थी और उसमें हिस्से बंटे तब कोई वजह में नही समझता कि जमीन में हिस्सा न मिला हो। तथा उपरोक्त के आधार पर मैं इस निर्णय पर पहुंचता हूँ कि राम पाल सिंह आदि की यह हिस्सा तनहा की भूमिधरी की बाग नही है। दरगाही आदि के नाम फर्जी दर्ज नहीं है। बल्कि दरगाही आदि सह खातेदार है, तथा इसी के अनुसार वाद बिन्दु 1 से 3 तक का निर्णय किया जाता है।" (Emphasis supplied)
7. The Contesting-Respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 29.01.1974 and relevant findings thereof are reproduced hereinafter:
" अतः दरगाही आदि अपने की बागदार साबित करना है। उन्होने 1867 फ० की नकल कुर्रा दाखिल किया है, जिसमें ढोढा का नाम 728 पर दर्ज है। विद्वान वकील ने कहा कि मौजूदा बाग की 728 कही पुरानी बाग है, और वह ढोढा, दरगाही बाद के मूरिस है वह बागदार , किनकल कुर्रा में बाग ढोढा दर्ज है। ढोढा ने इस नम्बर का जुज रकवा उदित कुंवर को कर दिया था अतः इसके साधार पर 1262 फ० में जरिए खरीदगी उदित कुंवर के नाम दर्ज हुए लेकिन उदित आदि ने मुसल्लम खेवट अपने नाम दर्ज करा लिया। इसके बाद मु०न०8 सन् 1887 दायर किया गया कि गलत खेवट तैयार करा लिया गया है, और चूंकि उदित कुंवर ही 07.02.1887 को इसका पट्टीदार तथा खेवटदार था उसके तथा नौहर के बीच में समझौता हो गया। उनके अनुसार ढोढा के वंशज को 62 पेड़ मिले। उन्होंने कहा कि 1911 का कुर्का दरख्तान इस सुलहनामे के अनुसार हुवा है, और हवीव और फकीर आदि के नाम भी दर्ज है। इसके अनुसार दरगाही आदि इसके बागदार है। और 1887 में किया हुआ सुलहनामा पक्षों के ऊपर पावन्दी रखता है। विद्वान वकील ने यह तर्क रखा कि रामपाल आदि का यह कैस नहीं है कि उस वक्त के पेड़ गिर चुके हैं, और चूंकि रामपाल ने अपने ब्यान में इसको बाग माना है। इसलिए दरगाही का हक समाप्त नहीं हुआ। उनका कहना है कि रामपाल आदि की यह पूरी बाग प्रकार मिल गयी कोई सबूत नहीं है। उदित कुँवर के शाख के रघुनन्दन है, जो इस मुकदमे को नही लड़ रहे है, इसलिए दरगाही आदि बागदार माने जायेगे। पत्रावली पर कोई ऐसी नकल फर्द मुताविक्त नहीं दाखिल की गयी है जिससे यह जाहिर होती हो कि ढोढा के नाम जो जमीन थी वह मौजूदा बाग ही थी। अगर उसको मौजूदा बाग मान लिया जाय तो भी ढोढा चूंकि लावल्द ही मर गए है जो जुवानी सबूत से जाहिर है और उक्ति आदि इस बाग के जमींदार थे। इस प्रकार ढोढा का हक इस भूमि से समाप्त हो गया और यह भूमि जमींदारान को दी गयी है बाद में नौहर ने मुकमदा इस सम्बन्ध मे दायर किया और अकेले उदित कुंवर से सुलहनामा कर लिया। यह सुलहनामा 62 पेडों पर नौहर का हक माना गया। यह सुलहनामा 1887 का है, जो 1294 फ० होता है। 1292 फ० की खेवट से स्पष्ट है कि उदित कुंवर के अतिरिक्त भी इसमे और खेवटवारान के नाम था तो अकेले उदित कुंवर से सुलहनामा करने पर नौहर को पेडो पर हक नही पहुच सकता और इस बात पर मुकदमा नं० 8 में पारित किया गया आदेश बागदारी हक प्रदान नहीं कर सकता। सिविल जज का आदेश उसी सुलहनामे के आधार मानते हुए पारित किया गया है, और यह आदेश अंतिम नही हुआ है, क्योकि हाई कोर्ट से मुकदमा अबेट कर दिया गया। इस प्रकार दरगाही आदि के पास अपना हक दायर करने के लिए कोई सबूत नही रह जाता और वह इस बाग में बागदार नहीं। वि०च०अ० का आदेश निरस्त होने योग्य है।
उपरोक्त के आधार पर अपील स्वीकार की जाती है, और आदेश हुआ कि बाग 2157। 3-74 से राजबसन्त, राजकरन पुत्रगण इन्द्रपाल तथा दरगाही आदि के नाम खारिज किये जाये। 2157। 1-57 रामपाल पुत्र विषपाल, विजुला पत्नी राज बहादुर, श्याम दुलारी, जंग बहादुर नरेन्द्र बहादुर के नाम भूमिधरी में दर्ज रहेगा और 2157 मि०। 2-17 राम संवारी पत्नी विश्वपाल रामपाल पुत्र विश्वपाल श्याम दुलारी पत्नी जंग बहुदुर विजुला पत्नी राज बहादुर, नरेन्द्र बहादुर के नाम भूमिधरी में दर्ज होगा। अन्य लोगों के नाम खारिज होंगे। मिसिल बाद अमल दरामद दाखिल दफ्तर हो।" (Emphasis supplied)
8. Petitioners thereafter preferred a revision, however, the same was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 08.09.1976 and relevant findings thereof are reproduced hereinafter:
"कागजात देखने से पता चलता है कि दरगाही आदि का नाम विद्वान सिविल जज के आदेश दिनांक 28.09.61 के आधार पर खतौनी 1373-75 फ० मे पहली बार दर्ज हुआ। निगरानी कर्ता के विद्वान वकील का तर्क है कि जो मुकदमे अबेट हो गए है उन्हे भी सबूत के लिए प्रयोग किया जा सकता है, और इस प्रकार निगरानीकर्ता का नाम सही दर्ज हुआ है, और मौके पर उनका कब्जा भी है।
मेरे सामने यह भी बहस की गयी कि सिकम्बर 1926 के पहले बाग के बारे मे कानून बहुत साफ नही था और 1926 मे ही बाग जमींदार और बाग रियाया का वजूद कायम हुआ और कानून के अनुसार रियाया को बाग लगाने के लिए जमींदार की सरीही या इशारतन रजामन्दी आवश्यक थी और बाद रियाया द्वारा बाग लगाने के आधार पर जमीदार कोई कार्यवाही नही करता था तो यह समझा जाता था कि इसमें जमींदार की रजामन्दी निहित है।
विद्वान बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 29.01.84 में पक्षो द्वारा दिए गए साक्ष्य का पूर्ण विवेचन किया है और सही निष्कर्ष निकाला है। मै उनके कथन से पूर्णतयः सहमत हूं कि केवल उदय कुंवर द्वारा किया गया समझौता मान्य नही है, क्योकि खेवट 1292 फ० मे और भी खेवटदारान के नाम दर्ज है। इस प्रकार नौहर को या उनके वंशजो को पेडो पर हक नही पहुच सकता और न तो बागदारी का हक ही प्रदान कर सकता है। इसके अतिरिक्त पत्रावली पर गाटा सं० 728 का फर्द मुताबिक नही दाखिल है जो सिद्ध करे कि मौजूदा नम्बर 728 से ही बना है।
उपरोक्त परिस्थितियों में विद्वान सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी का फैसला दिनांक 29.01.74 पूर्णतयः वैधानिक है, और उसमें किसी हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नही है।
अतः निगरानी खारिज की जाती है।" (Emphasis supplied)
9. It is apparent from above referred details that reasons given by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority were that since in Khewat No. 1292 in addition to Udit Kunwar, who has entered into compromise with predecessors of petitioners, other Khewatdars were also recorded and since they were not part of the compromise, therefore, compromise would have not legal value. The entries of predecessors of petitioners were on basis of an order passed in an appeal on 28.09.1961 and since it was based on referred compromise and later second appeal was abeted, therefore, order would have no legal bearing.
10. An argument with regard to applicability of the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1926") was noted, but it appears that either it was not pressed or not considered.
11. Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have rejected the effect of compromise decree on ground that compromise was not signed by all Khewatdars. However, since only one Khewatdar, namely, Udit Kunwar was recorded in Khewat, therefore, he was competent to enter into compromise even on behalf of others. Alternatively it was submitted that atleast predecessors in interest of petitioners were entitled for share of Udit Kunwar.
12. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that predecessors in interest of petitioners as well as petitioners were in long possession atleast till commencement of consolidation proceedings, therefore, in the light of Section 196 of Act, 1926, which for the first time defines, "grove holders", predecessors in interest of petitioners were perfected their possession being "grove holders" and benefit thereof would fall at the time when U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950) came into force. As such entry of co-bhumidhar would be relevant. Learned counsel has stressed upon the proviso to Section 196 of Act, 1926. For reference Section 196 of Act, 1926 is reproduced hereinafter:
"196 - Definition: A grove-holder is a person to whom land has been let or granted by a landlord or permanent tenure-holder for the purpose of planting a grove, or who has in accordance with local custom entitling him to do so or with the written permission of the landlord or the permanent tenure- holder, planted a grove on land held by him as tenant (not being a permanent tenure-holder, a fixed-rate tenant or a sub-tenant) or as rent-free grantee, not being a grantee to whom the provisions of section 185 or section 186 apply, of such landlord or permanent tenure-holder, as the case may be:
Provided that where the permission was granted prior to the commencement of this, the permission need not have been in writing and may have been either express or implied." (Emphasis supplied)
13. Learned counsel has further submitted that since petitioners were "grove holders" in terms of above referred provision, therefore, due to their long open possession they become Sirdar when Zamindari was abolished. He submitted that these legal aspects were not considered by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation and being question of law the same could be considered by this Court.
14. Per contra, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents, first of all referred the details of a civil suit bearing No. 116 of 1958 filed by original petitioner that Dargahi has sought relief of co-grove holder alongwith respondents, which was dismissed by Court of Munsif and first appeal thereof was allowed vide order dated 20.09.1961 and on basis of said order, original petitioners were recorded for the first time in revenue record of 1373 and 1375 Fasli, i.e., after Zamindari Abolition, therefore, no benefit could be granted to original petitioners of Act, 1926.
15. As second appeal was filed against the order dated 20.09.1961 the contesting-respondents, however, since consolidation proceedings commenced, second appeal was abated vide order dated 14.08.1970, therefore, effect of any decree passed earlier become inoperative. Learned counsel referred the submission, consideration and findings referred by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in this regard, which are reproduced as under:
"अतः अब नए सिरे से दरगाही को अपना हक साबित करना है। खतौनी 1292 फ० की नकल दाखिल की जिसमें विवादित गाटे का पुराना नं० 2023 बाग मालिकान यह उदित कुंवर वगैरह दर्ज है। 1323 फ० की फर्द मुताबिक दाखिल है, जिसमें आदार वर्ष के 2157 नम्बर पुराना नं० 2023 है। उदित कुंवर सुचित कुंवार आदि के नाम दर्ज है। उनके नाम के साथ अहसानुल्लाह का नाम भी दर्ज है। खेवट 1323 फ० की नकल दाखिल है इसमें पट्टी नं० 2 पर उचित कुंवर आदि के नाम दर्ज है, और खेवट 1 पर और लोगो के साथ इकरामुल्ला का नाम दर्ज है। खेवट पट्टी पर इस बाग का रकवा 1-57 है, और खेवट 2 के इस बाग पर रकबा 2-17 है। खतौनी 1334 फ० खेवट पट्टी 3 उदित कुंवर आदि दर्ज है। इसका बाग 2157।2-17 बाग मालिकान पट्टी उदित कुंवर दर्ज है। 1350 फ० मे खेवट पट्टी 1 से इकरामुल्लाह का नाम समाप्त हो गया है। और परमसुख आदि को छोड़कर शेष नाम दर्ज है यानी 4 आदमियों के नाम का इन्द्राज है। संतवक्स, रघुनन्दन, यशपाल, विषपाल, संतवक्स की पतोहू विजुला है। रघुनन्दन के नरेन्द्र बहादुर है। यशपाल से सम्बन्धित श्याम दुलारी है, तथा विषपाल के रामपाल है। पट्टी। खैवटदार यशपाल, राम पाल, रघुनन्दन व राज बहादुर और 3 पर यशपाल, रामपाल, रघुनन्दन, राज बहादुर, परमसुख और इन्द्रपाल दर्ज है। खतौनी 1359 फ० से 2157।2-17 बाग मालिका खैवट पट्टी 3 के अनुसार है और 2-57, 1-57 बाग मालिकान खेवट पट्टी 1 के अनुसार है। 1372 फ० की खतौनी में 2157।2-17, 2-57, 1-57 पर उनके वारिसान के नाम दर्ज हुए है, तथा दरगाही आदि सह खातेदार दर्ज हुऐ है। 1373 से 75 फ० में दरगाही आदि के नाम का निफाज हुआ है, और दोनों खाते टूट कर इस बाग का इन्द्राज इकट्ठा हुआ है। अपीलकर्ता के विद्वान वकील का कहना है कि रहसानुल्लाह इकरामुल्लाह दरगाही आदि के मुरिसान नहीं है, और दरगाही आदि के मूरिसान का नाम इस बाग से सम्बन्धित खेवट पर कभी दर्ज नही रहा इसलिए यह बागदार नहीं माने जा सकते है।
विद्वान वकील ने यह भी तर्क रखा कि नकल दावा मुकदमा दीवानी मु० 8 नौहर पुत्र नरक जुलाहा बनाम उदित कुंवर की नकल दाखिल की गयी है। उसमें यह लिका है कि 728 जिसका मुकदमा नं० 2023 है। 1292 फ० में मकबूजा व मनसुवा औदानी की थी - औदानी के लड़के ढोढा और नरकू इकट्ठा रहते थे। कारोबार एक मे था। औदानी के बाद ढोढा व नरकू और उनके शाख का यह बाग है। बाग 2023 से अम्बा और महुआ के पेंड है। 3-1-1886 एक्ट के अनुसार दखल बहक मुद्दई बनाम मुदालहम सादिर फरमाई जांव। इस मुकदमे में उदित कुंवर के साथ सुलहनामा हो गया। सुलहनामा पर उदित कुंवर के दस्तखत है, जब कि 1292 फ० में अन्य खेवटदार भी दर्ज है उनके हस्ताक्षर नहीं है। इस सुलहनामा के अनुसार डिग्री हुयी और नौहर का 62 पेड़ का मालिक माना गया और शेष पेडों पर से उनकी नाम खारिज हो गया। गाटा 2023नकल कुर्रा 1911 दाखिल किया गया है जिसमें उदित कुंवर, रामलगन, सुमेर, चार हिस्सा व हिस्सा बराबर जरिए खरीदगी व अमीर, फकीर व दब्ब खां व एहनउल्लाह मु० अजमानी पांच हिस्सा दर्ज है। अपीलकर्ता के विद्वान वकील का तर्क है कि दरगाही आदि की डिग्री से यह साबित है कि इकरामुल्लाह, एहसानुल्लाह उनके शजर के नही है, और 1911 का कुर्रा में फकीर आदि जो आये है, वह भी उनके शजीर के नाम है 1887 से अब तक उनके नाम का इन्द्राज कही नही है, और उनके पक्षों मे केवल मु०नं० 8/1887 का सुलहनामा और आदेश ही है लेकिन उस सुलहनामे में केवल उदित कुंवर के हस्ताक्षर है, और मुकदमें में वही एक फरीक थे और सुलहनामा तथा मुकदमें का आदेश पेडो के सम्बन्ध मे है, जो इस बाग में दरगाही आदि की कोई हक नहीं दे सकता, क्यो न तो उनका कोई हक ही माना गया न कोई कब्जा ही दिलाया गया और सम्बन्धित फरिकेन ने कोई सुलहनामा ही दाखिल किया है। विद्वान वकील का यह कनहा है कि दरगाही आदि न तो जमींदार थे और न काश्तकार थे। उन्होने लगभग 40 वर्ष बाद आकर मुकदमा लड़ा है, और नरकू जिन्दा रहे कोई बाग का हिस्सा नहीं मांगा। इस प्रकार कोई हक दरगाही का नही है। दरगाही के तरफ से विद्वान वकील ने तर्क रखा कि रामपाल आदि की तरफ से राज बसन्त आदि का नाम खारिज कराने की कोई आपत्ति नही थी। उनका नाम खारिज कराने के लिए केवल अपील में ही कहा गया है इसलिए 1292 फ० से 1359 फ० तक पक्षों के मूरिसान के नाम दर्ज थे। राजबसन्त आदि ने दरगाही आदि के नाम खारिज करने का कोई क्लेम नहीं किया। अतः य़ह माना जायेगा कि वह दरगाही को बागदार मानते हैं, और चूंकि कुछ बागदार दरगाही को बागदार मानते हैं, इसलिए यह बागदार है। दरगाही आदि के विद्वान वकील इस तर्क से मै सहमत नही हूँ क्योकि जैसा कि ऊपर कहा जा चुका है। राज बसन्त आदि का नाम इस बाग के 2-17 पर ही दर्ज थे जो उन्होने राम-संवारी के नाम बेच दिया है, और उनका दाखिल खारिज भी हो चुका है। इस प्रकार राज बसन्त आदि को अब इस बाग का मालिक नहीं माना जा सकता। वह दरगाही आदि के नाम को दर्ज रखने के लिए मना करे या न करें इससे कोई फर्क नही होता। " (Emphasis supplied)
16. Learned counsel for respondents has placed heavy reliance on above referred arguments and reiterated that petitioners were never recorded as tenure holders on the basis of their possession or being grove holders. The only basis of their right was the order passed by the Appellate Authority, however, since second appeal thereof was abated, therefore, no benefit could be accrued to them. He also submitted that petitioners and predecessors in interest of petitioners were never been recorded as tenure holders or grove holders and intention of contesting-respondents was always to consider the land only as a Bag and right whatsoever accrued to petitioners was limited to trees with exclusion of land. The agreement was signed by only one Khewatdar and other recorded Khewatdars were not party to it, therefore, apparently it would have no legal consequence.
17. Learned counsel for contesting-respondents further refers Sections 18, 19 and 20 of Act, 1950, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"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-
(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 rent-free grantee as such; or
(d) held as such by-
(i) an occupancy tenant;
(ii) a hereditary tenant;
(iii) a tenant on Patta Dawami or Istamrari referred to in Section 17;
possessing the right to transfer the holding by sale,
(e) held 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 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 subsection (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 land-holder under Section 7 and 8 of the said Act, be refunded to the person entitled in such manner as may be prescribed.
19. Land in the holdings to be settled with the tenants thereof as sirdar. - All land held or deemed to have been held on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting by any person as-
(i) a tenant holding on special terms in Avadh;
(ii) an ex-proprietary tenant;
(iii) an occupancy tenant;
(iv) a hereditary tenant;
(v) a grantee at favourable rate of rent;
(vi) a non-occupancy tenant of tea estates notified as such in a notification issued under sub-section (5) of Section 30 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. Act XVII of 1939);
(vii) a sub-tenant referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, and;
(viii) [Deleted by U.P. Act No. 16 of 1953 (w.e.f. 01.07.1952)]
(ix) all land referred to in Section 17 held on the said date by any person on Patta Dawami or Istamrari, shall save in cases provided for in Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18, be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such person, who shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled, except as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 18, to take or retain possession as a sirdar thereof.
20. A tenant of Sir, sub-tenant or an occupant to be an adhivasi. - 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 sub-clause (i) of Clause (b), 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 [sub-clause (i) of Clause (b)], 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 in the khasra or khatauni of 1356-F prepared under Section 28 33 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 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] 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."
18. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that since none of the conditions provided in above referred provision were fulfilled, therefore, petitioners cannot claim any right. Lastly, learned counsel has reiterated the considerations and findings returned by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that predecessors in interest of petitioners were recorded in revenue record for the first time in the year 1973, i.e., much after the commencement of Act, 1950, therefore, they have no right over the land of Baag.
19. Counsel further submitted that so far as argument with regard to co-tenancy is concerned, burden lies upon petitioners and they have failed to discharge the same. Learned counsel further submitted that since land was admittedly was not ancestral, no right could be accrued under the provisions of United Provinces of Tenancy Act, 1939. He further submitted that in writ jurisdiction concurrent findings could be interfered only when there are perversity or error apparent on the face of record or beyond jurisdiction, which is not the case in hand.
20. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that since revenue entry entered in favour of predecessors in interest of petitioners in the year 1973 was based on long possession, therefore, according to Section 18(a) and (c) of Act, 1950 petitioners would be considered intermediaries or cultivators of land in dispute or held or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove. Long possession of predecessors in interest of petitioners was not much disputed, therefore, effect of entry at belated stage would not forego legal effect of their long possession.
21. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
22. As referred above, claim of petitioners and their predecessors was accepted on the ground that there was an agreement between predecessors of both parties way back in the year 1887 and Baag was handed over to predecessors of petitioners. Consolidation Officer has accepted that in the compromise rights on land were not handed over to petitioners or their predecessors. However, there is a presumption that since Baag was handed over, therefore, it implies that land was also handed over. This assumption was not accepted by Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities.
23. The above referred both authorities have considered the other aspects of case also, i.e., claim of predecessors of petitioners was for the first time recorded in revenue record on the basis of a decree passed by Appellate Civil Court, which was based on a compromise/ agreement entered between parties in the year 1887. However, second appeal thereof was abeted since consolidation proceedings commenced and both authorities held that there would be no legal consequence of the order passed by Appellate Civil Court and, therefore, no legal consequence would follow from any order passed thereon. Above referred both authorities have further considered that agreement itself was not legally enforceable since it was executed by only one Khewatdar, namely, Udit Kunwar without consent of other Khewatdars. Both authorities have also considered that due to death of Doda, being issueless, possession of Baag was returned to the then Zamindar and thereafter possession was handed over on basis of an agreement executed between parties at the instance of Udit Kunwar being only one Khewatdar and other Khewatdars were not party to it.
24. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued about the legal effect of provisions of Act, 1939 that by virtue of said Act they have already become grove holders and rights thereof would fall. This argument appears to be urged before Revisional Authority as it was noted but it further appears that it was not argued or pressed effectively.
25. I have carefully perused the provisions of Section 196 of Act, 1939 and specifically its proviso. For any legal consequence of Section 196, i.e., for the purpose of declaration of being a "grove holder", there are certain requirements such as land was granted for the purpose of raising a grove, either in accordance with law, custom or with written permission. However, proviso provides that if the permission was prior to commencement of Act, it need not to be in writing and may have been either express or implied. It has been observed and discussed above that predecessors of petitioners were granted Baag by way of an agreement executed in the year 1887 which was signed by only one Khewatdar, namely, Udit Kunwar. Now the question arose, whether said agreement would fall within the provisions as referred above, i.e., it would be considered to be a legally permissible or not.
26. Both authorities, i.e, Appellate and Revisional, have returned a finding that agreement could not be legally enforceable since it was not signed by other Khewatdars. Aforesaid finding of fact could not be disputed effectively by learned counsel for petitioners and he has argued that alternatively petitioners and their predecessors be declared to be beneficiaries of grove holders atleast to extent of area of the share of Udit Kunwar. However, I do not find any merit in the argument. The agreement, as referred above, is of the entire land and not limited to share of Udit Kunwar. Agreement has to be considered on the basis of contents thereof and intention behind it. Udit Kunwar has executed agreement treating himself as Zamindar of entire Baag and not only to the extent of his share. This Court cannot facture the agreement in contradiction of its condition and intention and Court is of the view that petitioners and their predecessors could not get benefit of agreement and they cannot be deemed to be grove holders in terms of proviso to Section 196 of Act, 1939. The concurrent findings of fact are not perverse, therefore, it cannot be interfered by this Court by issuing a writ of certiorari and for this purpose it would be appropriate to quote few paragraphs of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Central Council for Research In Ayurvedic Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996 as under:
65. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory.
66. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. We may only say that while adjudicating a writ-application for a writ of certiorari, the court is not sitting as a court of appeal against the order of the tribunals to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion. If there is any evidence, the court will not examine whether the right conclusion is drawn from it or not. It is a well-established principle of law that a writ of certiorari will not lie where the order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter of facts or on merits. (See: King vs. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., (1992) 2 AC 128 (PC)."
27. In view of above, the writ petition being sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :-05.09.2023 AK