Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) Matbar Mal, who had Sirdari rights over the disputed land, deposited an amount equal to ten times the land revenue payable on the land in order to acquire Bhumidhari rights. This he could do under S. 134 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as it then stood. The deposit was made on October 28, 1961. On the same day, Matbar Mal sold the land to the present appellant. On October 30, 1961, a certificate to the effect that he had acquired Bhumidhari rights was issued to Matbar Mal under S. 137 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Thereafter the sons of Matbar Mal filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for cancellation of the deed of sale executed by Matbar Mal on October 28, 1961 in favour of the defendants. The suit was dismissed by the Court of the Additional Munsif and the appeal by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by Court of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Deoria. On second appeal by the plaintiffs, however, a single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the appeal following a Division Bench judgment of the same Court in Dhani Ram v. Jokhu (Second Appeal No. 4276 of 1964) and decreed the suit. The defendant has preferred this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
(2.) The ground on which the second appeal was allowed by the High Court was that the Sirdar who deposited the requisite amount acquired Bhumidhari rights not from the date of deposit but from the date of the grant of the Bhumidhari certificate, and, therefore, Matbar Mal who executed the sale deed on October 28, 1961 had no right to execute the same on that day as he acquired Bhumidhari rights with effect from October 30, 1961 only, which was the date of the issuance of the Bhumidhari certificate.
(3.) Before the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was amended in 1962, S. 134 in so far as it is relevant stood as follows: "134(1). If a sirdar belonging to the class mentioned in Cl. (a) of S. 131 pays or offers to pay to the credit of the State Government an amount equal to ten times the land revenue payable or deemed to be payable on the date of application for the land of which he is the sirdar, he shall, upon an application duly made in that behalf of an Assistant Collector, be entitled, with effect from the date on which the amount has been deposited, to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in S. 137 in respect of such land ..........." Section 137 in so far as it is relevant then stood as follows: "137(1). If the application has been duly made and the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the declaration mentioned in S. 134, he shall grant a certificate to that effect. (2) Upon the grant of the certificate under sub-sec. (1) the sirdar shall from the date thereof- (a) become and be deemed to be a bhumidhar of the holding or the share in respect of which the certificate has been granted, and (b) ********** " There was some conflict of opinion in the Allahabad High Court on the question whether the tenant depositing the amount equivalent to ten times the land revenue and obtaining a Bhumidhari certificate, obtained Bhumidhari rights from the date of deposit, the date of declaration or the date of certificate. The conflict was resolved by the legislature which enacted Act 21 of 1962 which amended S. 137 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act among other provisions of various other enactments. In S. 137, sub-sec. (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act, for the words "from the date thereof" were substituted the words and figures "from the date on which the amount referred to in S. 134 has been deposited". Unfortunately the amending Act, which in the case of certain amendments provided that the substituted words shall be deemed always to have been so substituted, did not so provide in the case of the amendment of S. 137(2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act. The result was that in cases where the amount had been deposited and a certificate obtained on different dates before the coming into force of the 1962 amending Act, the position still was that the tenure holder acquired bhumidhari rights with effect only from the date of issuance of the bhumidhari certificate. It was so held in Dhani Ram v. Jokhu (supra) by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. It was following this decision in Dhani Ram's case that the learned single Judge of the High Court in the present case allowed the second appeal.;