Case: Patiraji Vs. Mamta &amp; Others

2. One Ram Adhar and the respondents were co-tenants of certain lands situated at Bibiganj, District Sultanpur. On the death of Ram Adhar on 24-2-1949 the appellant took proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act 1939 for a declaration that she was the widow of Ram Adhar and as such, had become a co-tenant along with the respondents. The appellant succeeded before the Assistant Collector but in appeal, the Additional Commissioner and then the Board of Revenue took a contrary view, holding that the appellant was not the widow of Ram Adhar. The judgment of the Board of Revenue is dated July 1, 1954.3. In the meanwhile, the Act had come into force on July 1, 1952. The appellant then brought the present suit, treated as one under S. 20 (b) read with Section 232 of the Act. The case of the appellant is that her name was recorded as an occupant in the Khasra of 1356F, that she has therefore become an Adhivasi under Section 20 (b) (i) and is consequently entitled to possession of the lands from which she was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit but the Additional Commissioner allowed Patirajis appeal and decreed her suit. Respondents carried an appeal against the decision of the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue but that appeal was dismissed. The respondents then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of that court. He held that the entry in favour of the appellant appeared in the Khasra of 1356F, for a part of the year only and therefore she was not entitled to the Adhivasi rights. Special Appeal No. 344 of 1956 against that judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine on October 31, 1956. This is an appeal by special leave against that decision.

Court's reasoning:
5. Looking at the provision contained in Section 20 (b) (i), it seems to us plain that the Adhivasi rights can be claimed by those persons only who are recorded as occupants for the whole of the Fasli year 1356. It is important to remember that the rights conferred by Section 20 (b) (i) are available even and mostly to trespassers. Clearly therefore, there is, in the first instance, no justification for construing the provision with greater liberality than the language warrants. Special rights conferred by the Act ought to be subject to the special limitations imposed by thetherefore, the High Court of Allahabad and the Board of Revenue, U. P. have been uniformly taking the view that the right conferred by Section 20 (b) (i) can be availed of by those persons only who are recorded as occupants for the entire Fasli year 1356 and not by those who are recorded as occupants for a part of the year.(See Shyam Sunder Lal v. Mangali, 1963 All LJ 286; Ram Chander v. Chhotu, 1957 All LJ 24 (Rev.) Girdhari v. Raghubir Singh etc. 1958 All LJ 183 (Rev.) ). It would seem that the Board of Revenue struck a discordant note in the instant case only, but it is necessary to point out that the Board rested its decision on the circumstance that the appellant was the "sole heir" of Ram Adhar. In making that assumption the Board was in error, because in the earlier proceedings it was held that the appellant was not the widow of Ram Adhar and she traced no other line of heirship.8. It is clear from the entry on which the appellant relies that her name was entered as an occupant as from February 24, 1949. The Fasli year 1356 commenced on July 1, 1948 and ended on June 30, 1949. As the entry does not show that the appellant was in occupation of the land throughout the year, she is not entitled to the Adhivasi rights under S. 20 (b) (i) of the Act.Act.6. Apart from this aspect, any other view of Section 20 (b) (i) would make it unworkable in practice and would set the pace for lawlessness amongst trespassers. If different persons are in occupation of a land during different parts of the year, whom shall the court recognise as an Adhivasi and by what test shall the court pick and choose? Under the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual, the Lekhpal has to make threeinspections of every village in his halka, beginning respectively on August 15th, January 15th and April 15th of every year. (RuleOn the basis of these inspections, the Lekhpal has to make entries in the Khasra, that is to say in thein form No.). If a person other than aas classified in Part I or Part II of the Khatauni, is found to be in actual occupation, his name is to be recorded in the Remarks column (column No. 24) as "baqabza so and so" (Rulepara 3). It may so happen, and decided cases show that it does so happen, that different persons are found to be in possession of a land at the time of theinspections. The Lekhpal has to enter their names as occupants, may be in the remarks column, but the picture emerging at the close of the year will reveal that different persons were in occupation of theone during the Kharif season, some one during the Rabi season and some one probably taking charge, on the sly, of a bona vacantia. When the true owner is away, the trespassers will play and the law which governs them is might is right. It cannot be the policy of the Act that everyone of these fleeting trespassers must find recognition and be made eligible for the acquisition of Adhivasi rights. None of them, in our opinion, can qualify for those valuable rights. It was urged that the lastshould be recognised as an occupant to the exclusion of others but there is neither logic nor good sense in such a course. The last holder may have been in possession for a fractional part of the year and such possession may adventitiously coincide with the April visit of the Lekhpal. Besides, such a construction, as said already, will only encourage greater lawlessness amongst trespassers. Every tone, of them will make a frantic attempt to be last in the queue.