Case: Babu Noorul Hasan Khan Vs. Ram Prasad Singh and Others

This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court disposing of ten connected civil revisions. Noorul Hasan Khan and others were the Zamindars of the village in which certain lands were given in Theka to Bhagwati Singh, Ram Prasad Singh and others on the 6th of March, 1948. The Zamindari vested under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act, on the 30th of June, 1952. Disputes arose between the ex-Zamindars and the ex-Thekadars during the pendency of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. When entries in the list of tenancy holders were published under section 11 of the Consolidation of the Holdings Act relating to the lands in dispute consisting of several plots, objections were filed by both the parties. Noorual Hasan Khan and others claimed that the plots in dispute being their exclusive Sir and Khudkasht would be deemed to have been settled with them by the State on the abolition of the Zamindari and their names should be recorded as bhumidars thereof. On the other hand Bhagwati Singh and others claimed that they had become the Sirdars of the plots in dispute and they resisted the claim of the ex-Zamindars. The Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Civil Judge of Azamgarh in accordance with section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Civil Judge sent the matter for decision to an Arbitrator appointed under the Act as the dispute gav e rise to the question of title. Shri Kailash Chandra, an Assistant Collector, was appointed as an Arbitrator. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him he rejected the claim of ex- Zamindars and decided the matter in favour of the ex- Thekedars. Bhagwati Singh and others were held to be the Sirdars of the plots in question. Noorul Hasan and others filed objections to the Award before the Civil Judge. He allowed the objections on the ground that the illegality of the Award was apparent on the face of it in as much as the Arbitrator did not apply the correct law in determining the rights of the parties. He set aside the Award and remitted it back to the arbitrator for reconsideration i n the light of his judgment.Appeals were taken to the learned Additional District Judge who by order dated 8-12-1962 disagreed with the learned Civil Judge on the main question but affirmed his order of remand on the ground that in the Award many questions were left undetermined. Both sides filed separate revisions before the High Court. The High Court has allowed the revisions of the ex-Thekedars and dismissed those of the ex-Zamindars. Hence this appeal.

Reasoning: It would be noticed from the provisions aforesaid that a Thekedar of an Estate ceases to have any right to hold or possess as such any land in such Estate with effect from the date of its vesting. This is what has been provided in sub- section (1) of section 13. But it is subject to two exceptions-viz., on e the provision contained in section 12 and the other engrafted in sub-section (2) of section 13. There is no dispute between the parties that the land in possession of the Thekedars on the date of vesting was either covered by section 12(1) or section 13(2) (a). We are not concerned in this case with section 13(2)(b) as the land admittedly was the Sir or Khudkasht of the lessor namely the Zamindars. If such a land was in the personal cultivation of a person on the 1st day of May, 195 0 as a Thekedar thereof and if the Theka was made with a view to the cultivation of the land by such Thekedar personally then because of the non-obstante clause occurring in sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act the Thekedar would be deemed to be a hereditary tenant of the land entitled to hold as such and liable to pay rent at hereditary rates. If, however, the land was in personal cultivation of the Thekedar merely as a Thekedar appointed to collect rent from other tenants and incidentally allowed to cultivate the Sir or Khudkasht land of the lessor then he will be a mere asami in accordance with section 13(2)(a) of the Act. The Arbitrator on a consideration of the Theka document found that the theka was made with a view to cultivation of the land by the Thekedar personally. The interpretation of the Arbitrator was not such that it could enable the Civil Judge to take the view that there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. On the other hand it appears to us what the interpretation put by the Arbitrator was correct. There is a subtle but clear dividing line between the two types of cases one falling under section 12(1) of the Act and the other coming within the ambit of section 13(2)(a).In our opinion the High Court was right in its view that the Award of the Arbitrator was not fit to be interfered with.