Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents and have carefully perused the record.

3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. In this case, the publication of the notice contemplated under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made on 31.7.1967. The petitioner filed an objection on 31.8.1976 claiming sirdari rights in the land in dispute on the assertions that he was entitled to the benefits contemplated under Section 122B (4F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the requisite conditions contemplated therein having been satisfied, the revenue entry in respect of the land in dispute wherein the said land had been shown as vesting in the Gaon Sabha be corrected and instead, it be recorded as his bhumidhari holding. It may be noticed that in the village record, the land in dispute at the time when the objection had been filed was recorded as "Bachat" Land vesting in the Gaon Sabha.

4. The Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that the publication under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made on 31.7.1967 and the Gaon Sabha was continuing to be in possession since the year 1970 Fasali, The provisions contained in Section 122B (4F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into effect on 30.6.1975. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Consolidation Officer holding that on the relevant date, the petitioner was not in possession over the. land in dispute rejected the objection. The petitioner had claimed that in the proceedings under Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act initiated against him by the Gaon Sabha on 5.8.1975, his possession over the land in dispute had been shown to be of a period of six years. The Assistant Collector while disposing of the aforesaid proceedings had dropped the proceedings on the ground that the land in dispute stood recorded as "Bachat land" during the consolidation proceedings and as such the question in regard to the accrual of the sirdari rights put forward by the objectors on the strength of the provisions contained in Section 122B (4F) of the Act could be gone into before the competent authorities under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the proceedings under the said Act were still continuing.

5. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer by means of an appeal which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide his order dated 19.6.1978. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that the claim put forward by the petitioner should have been entertained under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as he was entitled to be recorded as tenure holder of the land in dispute on account of the benefit secured in his favour under the provisions contained in Section 1226 (4F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The direction given by the appellate authority was that Raghunath, the petitioner be recorded as sirdar under Section 122B (4F) and the land revenue be fixed accordingly.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on various grounds. However. I do not find it necessary to advert to them as it seems to me that the real controversy in this case stands concluded against the petitioner in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dhiraj and others v. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others, 1997 R. D. 324.

9. This Court had an occasion to consider the implications arising under the aforesaid provision in its decision in the case of Ramdin and others v. Board of Revenue and others, 1994 RD 395. wherein the contention that if the requisite conditions contemplated under Section 122B (4F) of the Act were fulfilled, any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe has to be deemed to be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in respect of the land in his occupation, under Section 195 of the Act. notwithstanding the provisions contained in Section 198 of the Act or the Rules prescribed under the Act regulating the manner in which a person could be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in respect of land vesting in the Gaon Sabha was held to be totally misconceived and not at all acceptable, clarifying that the deeming clause contained in Section 122B (4F) of the Act providing that it shall be deemed that the occupant had been admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the land in his occupation under Section 195 has to be treated to be confined in its operation to the proceedings contemplated under Section 122B of the Act, observing further that the right conferred under the deeming clause contained under Section 122B (4F) of the Act has to be taken so as to confer a right only made available to an unauthorised occupant of the land envisaged under Section 122B, who satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed therein, to protect his possession and does not create a title in him.