Case: Udai (Dead) (through Lrs.), Ram Kishan (Dead) (through Lrs.) and Ors Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and Ors

of 1356 F, the respondents were only recorded as sub-tenants but not as occupants and hence they cannot get the benefit of Section (20(b) (i) of the Act. this Court held, apropos these arguments : These (earlier) decisions negative the first, second and the fourth points sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants. The record of rights for the year 1356 F. had not been corrected afterwards. We have to go by the entry in the record of rights and no enquiry need be made as to when the respondents became subtenants after the decision in favour of the landlord, Ram Dhani Singh. The last decision of this Court also shows that as between the tenant and the sub-tenant the entry in the record of rights in favour of the sub-tenant makes him the occupant entitled to the adhivasi rights under Section 20 of the Act. With regard to the point as to the violation of Rule 183 it is enough to say that the point was not canvassed before the Board of Revenue and as such we need not look into it. 12. From the above extract, it seems clear that Nath Singh (supra) clinches the issue before us. It unequivocally holds that a person recorded as sub-tenant in 1356F, (here 1357F.), is entitled to claim, as against the tenant that he is entitled to adhivasi rights under Section 20. Sri Swarup, however, vehemently urges that this is not so. He points out that Nath Singh (supra) does not proper to overrule either Upper Ganges (supra) or Amba Prasad (supra); on the contrary, it purports to only follow and apply these decisions. He contends that, if a mere entry in the village records as sub-tenant in 1356F. were sufficient to confer adhivasi rights, the whole discussion in Upper Ganges was beside the point. this Court (constituting five learned Judges) need not have at all entered into an elaborate discussion, as they did, about the nature of the possession of the company in that case : whether it was in possession as tekhedar (on behalf of someone else) or in its own right. This shows, says Sri Swarup, that what is important is that the person claiming the rights should have been entered as an occupant entitled to possession of the lands in his own rights and not as an agent or on behalf of the Zamindar or the principal tenant. 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. 13. The argument is ingenious out we do not think it is open to the respondent in view of the categorical decision in Nath Singh. Contention (4) as set out at p. 501 and the conclusion at p. 504 of the above judgment leave no doubt regarding this. Shri Swarups argument indirectly asks us to go behind the entry in the village records and enter into a discussion as to whether the person recorded as subtenant was in possession or not, was entitled to possession or not and, if yes, in what capacity he was entitled to, or was in, such possession, a plea that goes directly in the teeth of all the three decisions. The discussion in Upper Ganges does not negative this position. That discussion was in the context of repelling a specific contention urged before the Court by the landlord, which derived inspiration, perhaps, from the specific exclusion of tekhedar from the definition of the expression tenant in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1936. That contention viz. that the companys possession was either on behalf of the the court or was on behalf of the landlords was negatived. That decision cannot, therefore, be treated as laying down that occupancy as a sub-tenant would not be sufficient for the purposes of Section 20(b)(i). So far as Amba Prasad is concerned, the observations in the judgment show that even the tenant can be regarded as occupants vis-a-vis the proprietor and the tenant respectively. It is only where, although the name of tenant or sub-tenant is shown in columns (5) and (6) of the khasra, some other person is shown in the remarks column as the actual occupant that the tenant or sub-tenant cannot be regarded as the recorded occupant. In our opinion, therefore, Amba Prasad and Sri Nath Singh are decisive of the issue in the present case. 14. learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, however, contended that this respondent was disabled landholder within the meaning of Section 10 read with Section 157 of the Act. He contended that she was entitled to become the owner of the plots in dispute and that the appellant could be no more than an asami in respect of the same, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 10, 21, Section 157 of the Act. This is a point which had been raised by the respondent in the writ petition. We find that, in the counter affidavit, the fifth respondent had raised an objection that it was not open to the writ petitioner to take up this plea in the writ petition. However, this aspect of the matter was not considered by the High Court as the writ petition was allowed on the principal ground raised in it.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. The answer to the above question seems self-evident if one were to go by the purely etymological meaning of the word occupant. In the absence of any statutory definition, that word would clearly cover any person who has been recorded as having been in occupation of the land in question in the relevant fasli irrespective of the capacity in, or title under, which he so occupied it. There will therefore be no reason, normally speaking, to exclude a person whose occupancy is recorded on the basis of his sub-tenancy. It appears, however, that in one of the early decisions under the Act, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Ram Dular Singh v. Babu Sukhu Ram 1963 61 ALJ 667) took the view that a person entered as subtenant in the Khasra and Khatauni of 1356F. could not be treated as a recorded occupant within the meaning of Section 20(b)(i). However a later Full Bench (Chobey Sunder Lal v. Sonu alias Sonpal held to the contrary in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil-ur-Rahman [1961]1SCR564 and Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan [1964]7SCR800 .6. It, however appears that the above two decisions of the Supreme Court and that of the Full bench in Chobey Sunder Lals case (supra) had been distinguished by the same High Court in Pir Khan v. Deputy Director 1965 62 ALJ 591) and Radha Kishori v. Joint Director 1972 70 ALJ 738. In the later case it was observed :The Supreme Court has held that the entry of a sub-tenant is an entry of an occupant qua the tenant-in-Chief and the entry of a tenant is an entry of an occupant qua the landlord. It, therefore, follows from the Supreme Court judgments that the entry of a tenant or sub-tenant in the records of 1356 Fasli can amount to an entry of occupant; but it does not follow from this that every entry of tenant or sub-tenant in the records of 1356 Fasli must necessarily amount to an entry of occupant.So for as we can see, the 1967 Full Bench deals with a different question and has not overruled the decision of the Division Bench in Pir Khans case. An occupant can only be against the Zamindar or the tenant or sub-tenant of the land, i.e., against some one holding the legal title in the land. If the land has been let out to a tenant, then the occupant can only be against the tenant. If the name of the tenant is recorded in the records of 1356 Fasli and he can be considered to be a recorded occupant also, then he will be an occupant against himself. Section 20(b) does not contemplate a rightful tenureholder being an occupant-it contemplates an occupant as some one other then the rightful tenureholder who is capable of acquiring adhivasi rights against him.However, the Court observed, in the view which we are taking it is neither necessary to examine this question any further nor to refer the matter for decision to a larger Bench. That view was that the claimant before the Court had acquired adhivasi rights under Section 20(a)(i) and that right was not affected whether or not he was a recorded occupant for purposes of Clause (b)(i).Only one slight modification to be noted in regard to the applicability of the section to the present case, which relates to Varanasi District, is that by a subsequent amendment, the reference to 1356 Fasli has to be read as reference to 1357 Fasli in respect of areas comprised the erstwhile Banaras State.5. The answer to the above question seems self-evident if one were to go by the purely etymological meaning of the word occupant. In the absence of any statutory definition, that word would clearly cover any person who has been recorded as having been in occupation of the land in question in the relevant fasli irrespective of the capacity in, or title under, which he so occupied it. There will therefore be no reason, normally speaking, to exclude a person whose occupancy is recorded on the basis of his sub-tenancy.So for as we can see, the 1967 Full Bench deals with a different question and has not overruled the decision of the Division Bench in Pir Khans case. An occupant can only be against the Zamindar or the tenant or sub-tenant of the land, i.e., against some one holding the legal title in the land. If the land has been let out to a tenant, then the occupant can only be against the tenant. If the name of the tenant is recorded in the records of 1356 Fasli and he can be considered to be a recorded occupant also, then he will be an occupant against himself. Section 20(b) does not contemplate a rightful tenureholder being an occupant-it contemplates an occupant as some one other then the rightful tenureholder who is capable of acquiring adhivasi rights against him.However, the Court observed, in the view which we are taking it is neither necessary to examine this question any further nor to refer the matter for decision to a larger Bench. That view was that the claimant before the Court had acquired adhivasi rights under Section 20(a)(i) and that right was not affected whether or not he was a recorded occupant for purposes of Clause (b)(i).7. In the judgment under appeal the learned Judge has, following the Division Bench decision in Pir Khan and Radha Kishori held that a sub-tenant could not be treated as a recorded occupant under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act.8. In Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil-ur-Rahman [1961]1SCR564 , the landlord had granted a tekha to the company upto 1355F. On the companys refusal to vacate on the expiry of the tekha, the landlord successfully sued for ejectment under Section 19 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. But pending the suit and appeals (in all of which it failed), the company had continued to be in possession and, though it handed over formal possession on 1.7.53, had resisted actual ejectment. On 1.7.53, the company filed a suit to recover possession under Section 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, claiming that it had become an adhivasi under Section 20 of the Act, for the company had been recorded in 1356F. as in possession of the land as tekhedar. The landlord resisted the suit on two grounds: (a) that the company, having been in possession under Court orders, was in possession not on its own behalf but on behalf of the Courts; and (b) that the company, having been recorded in 1356F. as a tekhedar, its possession was not on its own behalf but on behalf of the landlords whose tekhedar it was. Neither of these contentions was accepted by the Supreme Court. Wanchoo, J. for the majority, held that the company had acquired adhivasi rights in the land and was entitled to the possession thereof. Simply because there were stay orders which enabled the company to remain in possession, the possession was not on behalf of the Court. The company remained in possession in the same right in which it was in possession before the decree was passed on November 3, 1948. Though the company was recorded in possession as a tekhedar, it was an occupant in its own right and not on behalf of the landlord. It was open to the court to look beyond the entry of the company as a tekhedar in the Khasra. Das Gupta, J., however, held in his dissenting judgment :The company did not acquire the rights of an adhivasi. The word occupant means a person in possession in his own right and not on behalf of someone else. The benefit under the section is available only to those recorded as occupants. It is not permissible to look beyond the record to ascertain whether the claimant has been recorded as occupant. The record in the khasra of the possession as tekhedar amounts to record of possession on behalf of tekhedars lessor.. The facts in Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan [1964]7SCR800 were more complicated. But, for our present purposes, it is sufficient to extract the facts as set out in the headnote. Before the coming into operation of the Act, Amba Prasad was the Zamindar of the disputed land. The names of the respondents had been recorded in the khasra for 1356F as persons in possession of the disputed land but they had been dispossessed after 30.6.49. They claimed adhivasi rights under Section 20 on the strength of the record for 1356F. and were successful in their claim before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court dismissed Amba Prasads appeal. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was) analysed the terms of Section 20 and its explanations thus :The scheme of the section may now be noticed. The Section, speaking generally, says that certain persons recorded as occupants of lands (other than grove lands or lands to which Section 16 applies) shall be known as adhivasis and shall be entitled to retain or to regain possession of them after the date of vesting which was July 1, 1952. Such persons do not include an intermediary (Explanation IV). Such persons must be recorded as occupants in the khasra or khatauni for 1356F. (1.7.48 to 30.6.49). If such a person is in possession he continues in possession. If he is evicted after June 30, 1948 he is to be put back in possession notwithstanding anything in any order or decree. By fiction such persons are deemed to be entitled to regain possession (Explanation I). The emphasis has been laid on the record of khasra or khatauni of 1356F. and June 30, 1948 is the datum line. The importance of an entry in these two documents is further apparent from Explanations II and III. Under the former, if the entry is corrected before the date of vesting (1-7-52), the corrected entry is to prevail and under the later the entry is deemed to be corrected (even though not actually corrected) if an order or decree of a competent courts ordering the correction had been made before the date of vesting and the order or decree had become final. There are thus two date lines. They are June 30, 1948 and July 1, 1952, and the title to possession as adhivasi depends on the entries in the khasra or khatauni for the years Lordship then observed :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 sub-tenant 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 sub-tenant the later between him and a person recorded in the remarks column as daywear 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 July 1, 1952, provided he is in possession or was evicted after June 30, 1948. If he was evicted after June 30, 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 1356F, or its correction before July 1, 1952. It was perhaps thought that all such disputes would have solved themselves in the four years between June 30, 1948 and June 30, 1952.(underlining ours)His Lordship concluded by touching upon the question whether the persons claiming rights under Section 20 should prove actual possession in 1356F and, observing that this question had been left open in the Upper Ganges case, said there was no reason to disturb a long established line of decisions of the Allahabad High Court answering the question in the negative. In the result, Amba Prasads appeal was dismissed.10. It is necessary to refer to yet one more decision of this Court and that is Nath Singh v. Board of Revenue [1968]3SCR498 . In this case, the village records showed the respondents as sub-tenants from the appellants of the lands in question. One R who was the tekhedar of the proprietary rights, sued to eject the appellants and respondents alleging that the subletting was illegal. The suit was dismissed in March 1946 (i.e. towards the end of 1353F.) on the ground that there was no subletting and that the entries in the records to this effect were not correct. Despite the decision in the suit, no attempt was made by anyone to correct the entries in the village records and the respondents continued to figure as sub-tenants in these records, until 1368F when the lekhpal, on his own, removed those entries from the year 1358F. In 1952 (i.e. 1360F.), after the Act came into force, the respondents claimed adhivasi rights and sued to recover possession of the lands. They succeeded before the Board of Revenue and the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226. In an appeal by Special Leave, the Supreme Court held that the Court had to go by the entry in the record of rights, that it was not necessary to enquire whether the respondents had become sub-tenants after the decision in the suit filed by R and that, as between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the entry in the record of rights in favour of the sub-tenant made him the occupant entitled to the adhivasi rights under Section 20. The court followed the decisions in Upper Ganges and Amba Prasad. As to the former decision, the Court observed :This case establishes that a person recorded as an occupant on on the relevant date although found by courts of law to have no right to possession even prior thereto, is not to be denied adhivasis to the latter, the Court quoted, with apparent approval, extensive extracts from the judgment of Hidayatullah, J.11. In the last case before this Court, four arguments had been addressed on behalf of the appellants :(1) The correctness of the entry in the record of rights of 1356F. can be gone into and is capable of challenge in a court of law exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.(2) In the present case, there was an adjudication in March, 1945 and the respondents were not sub-tenants : consequently, unless they showed that they had thereafter become sub-tenants the benefit of the entry in their favour in 1356F. could not be availed of by them.(3) Under Rule 183 of the rules framed under the Act it was incumbent on the respondents to state in their applications the dates of their dispossession and the failure to do so rendered their petitions defective.(4) In the khasra of 1356 F, the respondents were only recorded as sub-tenants but not as occupants and hence they cannot get the benefit of Section (20(b) (i) of the Act.this Court held, apropos these arguments :These (earlier) decisions negative the first, second and the fourth points sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants. The record of rights for the year 1356 F. had not been corrected afterwards. We have to go by the entry in the record of rights and no enquiry need be made as to when the respondents became subtenants after the decision in favour of the landlord, Ram Dhani Singh. The last decision of this Court also shows that as between the tenant and the sub-tenant the entry in the record of rights in favour of the sub-tenant makes him the occupant entitled to the adhivasi rights under Section 20 of the Act.With regard to the point as to the violation of Rule 183 it is enough to say that the point was not canvassed before the Board of Revenue and as such we need not look into it.. From the above extract, it seems clear that Nath Singh (supra) clinches the issue before us. It unequivocally holds that a person recorded as sub-tenant in 1356F, (here 1357F.), is entitled to claim, as against the tenant that he is entitled to adhivasi rights under Section 20.13. The argument is ingenious out we do not think it is open to the respondent in view of the categorical decision in Nath Singh. Contention (4) as set out at p. 501 and the conclusion at p. 504 of the above judgment leave no doubt regarding this. Shri Swarups argument indirectly asks us to go behind the entry in the village records and enter into a discussion as to whether the person recorded as subtenant was in possession or not, was entitled to possession or not and, if yes, in what capacity he was entitled to, or was in, such possession, a plea that goes directly in the teeth of all the three decisions. The discussion in Upper Ganges does not negative this position. That discussion was in the context of repelling a specific contention urged before the Court by the landlord, which derived inspiration, perhaps, from the specific exclusion of tekhedar from the definition of the expression tenant in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1936. That contention viz. that the companys possession was either on behalf of the the court or was on behalf of the landlords was negatived. That decision cannot, therefore, be treated as laying down that occupancy as a sub-tenant would not be sufficient for the purposes of Section 20(b)(i). So far as Amba Prasad is concerned, the observations in the judgment show that even the tenant can be regarded as occupants vis-a-vis the proprietor and the tenant respectively. It is only where, although the name of tenant or sub-tenant is shown in columns (5) and (6) of the khasra, some other person is shown in the remarks column as the actual occupant that the tenant or sub-tenant cannot be regarded as the recorded occupant. In our opinion, therefore, Amba Prasad and Sri Nath Singh are decisive of the issue in the present case.We find that, in the counter affidavit, the fifth respondent had raised an objection that it was not open to the writ petitioner to take up this plea in the writ petition. However, this aspect of the matter was not considered by the High Court as the writ petition was allowed on the principal ground raised in it.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.