Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) and (b) all that the section has done is to take away the right of the tenure-holder to challenge in a collateral proceeding their status as permanent tenants. As regards tenants falling under cl. (c) what the provision has done is to require the tenure holder to object to the recording of such person as permanent tenant within a certain time before the mamlatdar. If he fails to avail himself of the opportunity the door is shut to his saying thereafter that the person is not a permanent tenant. It is to be noted that tenants who are to be regarded as permanent tenants for the purposes of the Abolition Act have been so found in enquiries held by revenue courts and not persons arbitrarily selected or persons who could not reasonably be regarded as permanent tenants.

The effect of the provision thus is that in proceedings under the Abolition Act for conferral of a right of an occupant the claimant's status as a permanent tenant cannot, if he satisfies the requirement of any of the three clauses of s. 3 of the impugned Act be open to question by the tenure-holder. Would the position have been any different if the impugned Act had not been passed ? Let us consider s. 5A of the Abolition Act by itself. Suppose a person recorded as a permanent tenant in the record of rights claimed to enforce the right conferred by this section to obtain the right of an occupant in proceedings thereunder. These proceedings would be taken before a revenue officer and he would be bound to act on the entry in the record of rights until and unless it was lawfully substituted by another. No suit lies for correcting an entry in the record of rights. Only in a collateral proceeding could it have been challenged and the jurisdiction of a civil court be invoked. Where no such suit or proceeding is pending when the proceedings under s. 5A are going on the tenure-holder cannot be permitted to go behind the entry. However, as an additional safeguard the Abolition Act has provided in s. 5A itself a remedy and that is to approach the State Government or an authority empowered by it in this behalf for deciding to question.

Clause (b) of s. 3 of the impugned Act, as also cl. (c), expressly contemplate cases where there is a dispute as to the status of a person and if it has been decided in favour of the person claiming to be a permanent tenant he is to be deemed to be a permanent tenant for the purposes of the Abolition Act. True that thereafter the tenure-holder cannot challenge the fact even in a collateral proceeding but that would be by reason of the provisions of s. 5A itself which have not been challenged. No doubt after the commencement of the impugned Act no new proceedings under s. 5A of the Abolition Act are permissible but that is because an alternative remedy is available under s. 6 of the impugned Act.