Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Amba Prasad vs Abdul Noor Khan And Ors on 17 April, 1964

Udai (Dead) (Through Lrs.), Ram Kishan ... vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 4 December, 1989

He invites our attention to the passage from Amba Prasad (supra) which we have underlined above and contends that the said passage outlines an exception and that the present case unlike Upper Ganges and Amba Prasad, falls under the exception so set out. In Nath Singh, he also points out, the person claiming the rights was in occupation not as a sub-tenant but in his own right. According to Sri Swarup, to claim right under Section 20(b)(i), it is not enough that the claimant is recorded as an occupant in the village records as 1357F.; it is also necessary that such occupancy should be traceable to a right in himself and not a right derived from a principal tenant. The object of the legislation, he says, was to abolish zamindari rights and not the rights of intermediate holders of property like tenants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhagwati Deen vs Sheetladin And Others on 25 May, 2022

"Before we proceed to decide whether the answering respondents satisfy the above tests we must consider what is meant by the terms ''occupant' and ''recorded'. The word ''occupant' is not defined in the Act. Since khasra records possession and enjoyment the word ''occupant' must mean a person holding the land in possession or actual enjoyment. The khasra, however, may mention the proprietor, the tenant, the subtenant and other person in actual possession, as the case may be. If by occupant is meant the person in actual possession it is clear that between a proprietor and a tenant the tenant, and between a tenant and the subtenant the latter and between him and a person recorded in the remarks column as ''dawedar qabiz' the dawedar qabiz are the occupants. This is the only logical way to interpret the section which does away with all intermediaries. If rights are not to be determined except in the manner laid down by the section, the entries must be construed as explained by the four explanations. Once we find out the right person in the light of the explanations, that person continues as an adhivasi after 1-7-1952, provided he is in possession or was evicted after 30-6-1948. If he was evicted after 30-6-1948 he is entitled to regain possession in spite of any order or decree to the contrary. The word ''occupant' thus signifies occupancy and enjoyment. Mediate possession, (except where the immediate possessor holds on behalf of the mediate possessor), is of no consequence. In this way even persons who got into occupation when lands were abandoned get recognition. The section eliminates inquiries into disputed possession by accepting the records in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 Fasli, or its correction before 1-7-1952. It was perhaps thought that all such disputes would have solved themselves in the four years between 30-6-1948 and 30-6-1952."
Allahabad High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

G.S. Fateh vs Custodian General Of Evacuee Property on 1 May, 1996

(21) The writ petition was heard and disposed of by S. Rangarajan, J. The learned Single Judge after dealing with the respective contentions of the parties has also dealt with the leading cases decided by the Supreme Court. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on Amba Prasad vs. Abdul Noor Khan and Ors., . Hidayatulla, J., as he then was, speaking for the court held that clauses (a) (i) and (b) (ii) of Section 20 of the Act do not require proof of actual possession in the Fasli Year 1356, and that requirement was merely an entry of the persons named as an occupant in Khasra and Khatauni of Fasli Year 1356.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Khiyashi Kachara Gosar & Another vs The Bombay Electric Supply & Transport ... on 24 November, 1998

21. The second decision of the Apex Court to which a reference has been made by Jamdar, J., in Ajit's case (supra) is of Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan and Ors., which is also under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 where it was held that the word "occupant" signifies occupancy and enjoyment. Mediate possession (except where the immediate possessor holds on behalf of the mediate possessor) is of no consequence. It was also held that "occupation" to be basis of a right must be of a person who claims to be in possession in his own right. While I am bound by the observations of the Apex Court in the two decisions mentioned above.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nath Singh And Others vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 21 March, 1968

The case of Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan and others(') is more in point. Amba Prasad was a zamindar of a village before the coming into operation of the Act. The opposite parties were persons whose names had been recorded in column 23 (miscellaneous) in the Khasra for the year 1356 F. as persons in possession and they claimed to be recorded as occupants of the fields in dispute and to have obtained adhivasi rights under S. 20. The case of the respondents was that they were in occupation of the land, and had been dispossessed after- June 30, 1948 by the appellant and as they were recorded occupants in 1356, F. they were not required to prove actual possession. The appellants stand was that the entry was fraudulently made after July, 1949. The suits were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer but in appeal the Additional Commissioner held that the respondents had' acquired Adhivasi rights. This was upheld by the Board of Revenue. The appellant then filed appeals to this Court. The real dispute , as noted by this Court was whether a person who was recorded as 'Qabiz' but not as a tenant or Subtenant would get the advantage of S. 2O of the Act and claim Adhivasi rights. Examining the scheme of s. 20 along with its. Explanations, it was observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Sonawati & Ors vs Sri Ram & Anr on 21 September, 1967

(i) of any land (other than grove land or lands to which section 16 applies) in the khasra or khatauni prepared under sections 28 and 33 respectively of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 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, or The land in dispute is not grove land, nor it is land to which s. 16 of the Act applies. Pritam Singh claimed that his name was entered as an occupant in the khasra of 1356 Fasli prepared under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and he was on that account entitled to the rights of an adhivasi in respect of the land. It was held by this Court in Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan and Others(1) that s. 20 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 does not require proof of actual possession:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 45 - J C Shah - Full Document

Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors on 4 May, 1976

In Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan and ors.(1), it was held by this Court that section 20 of the U.P. Act 1 of 1.951 does not require proof of actual possession and that its purpose is to eliminate inquiries into disputed possession by acceptance of the entries in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli. While commenting on this decision, this Court observed in Sonawati and ors. v. Sri Ram and Anr.(2) that "the Civil Court in adjudging a claim of a person to the rights of an adhivasi is not called upon to make an enquiry whether the claimant was actually in possession of the land or held the right as an occupant:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 63 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Shiveshwar Prasad Narain Singh & Anr vs Gharahu & Anr. Etc on 15 November, 1978

The view in Amba Prasad's (supra) case was affirmed by this Court in Nath Singh & ors. v. The Board of Revenue & ors.(1) If dependant in each case was a tenant of sir in respect of land of which the possession is sought by the plaintiff and no one else was shown as the occupant of such land in 1356 F., obviously the defendant in each case would become adhivasi under s. 20(a) (i). Therefore, s. 21 (h) would not be attracted as contended for by Mr. Goyal in this case because the third clause of s. 21 (h) refers to an occupant as envisaged in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of s. 20 and, therefore, the defendant would not become an asami as therein contemplated. In this view of the matter the plaintiff's suit has been rightly dismissed. Accordingly these appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D A Desai - Full Document

Hira Lal And Another vs Gajjan And Others on 30 January, 1990

The substantial issue in the present suit was whether the respondent was in possession of the disputed land. The respondent claimed possession under his father as sub-tenant and thereafter as sirdar. In support of his claim respondent relied on the entries in the revenue records and the re- ceipts for payment of rent. The effect of these documents had been wholly ignored by the lower courts on the assump- tion that these were fabricated. The U.P. Zamindari Aboli- tion Act came into force on July 1, 1952. Section 20(b)(i) of the Act provided that every person, recorded as occupant of a land in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli prepared under sections 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 190 1, be called the adhivasi of the land. This Court in Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan & Ors., [1964] 7 SCR 800 examined the scheme of the section and held that the title to posses- sion as adhivasi depends on the entry in the Khasra of 1356 Fasli. The section eliminates enquiries into possession in accepting the record in the Khasra.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 26 - M F Beevi - Full Document

Chandrika Prasad vs Pullo (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 10 April, 2000

In the case of Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan & Ors., [1964] 7 SCR 800, Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Bench of two learned Judges, had to interpret the words "recorded as occupants" as found in Section 20 of the U.P. Act. It was held on the facts of that case that the appellant before this Court was not entitled to raise the plea of the correctness of the entry in khasra because the entry was not corrected before the date of vesting as required by Explanation (ii) to Section 20 of the U.P. Act. It was further observed that the title to possession as adhivasi depends on the entries in the khasra or khatauni for the year 1356 Fasli. Section 20 of the U.P. Act does not require the proof of actual possession. These observations, on the facts of that case, cannot be of any assistance to the appellant for the simple reason that this Court, in the aforesaid cases, was not concerned with the examination of a situation like the present one wherein alleged sub-tenant of a mortgagee-in possession claimed the benefit of Section 20 of the U.P. Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next