Shah, J. - (1.) A piece of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 723/2, 724, 725 and 726 of Naugawan, Tahsil Fatehabad, District Agra, originally belonged to two brothers Tota Ram and Lajja Ram. Tota Ram and Lajja Ram were declared to be bhumidhars in respect of that land and a sanad was issued in their favour under S. 7 of the U. P. Act 10 of 1949. On October 20, 1951, Tota Ram and Lajja Ram sold their interest in the land to two brothers Sri Ram and Ram Prasad - who will hereinafter be called 'the plaintiffs'. Disputes arose thereafter about the possession of the land between one. Pritam Singh and the plaintiffs, and proceedings under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the instance of Pritam Singh. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the kind and called upon the parties to agitate the dispute as to their respective rights there in a civil suit.
(2.) The plaintiffs then commenced an action in the Court of the Munsif, Fatehabad, against Pritam Singh and Tota ham for a declaration of their rights as bhumidhars in possession of the land in suit and for an order "expunging" the name of Pritam Singh from the revenue records. Pritam Singh resisted the suit contending, inter alia, that the land was abandoned by Tota Ram and Lajja Ram and that since it was under his cultivation continuously since Fasli year 1356 (the year commencing from July 1, 1948 and ending on June 30, 1949) , he had acquired the rights of an adhivasi in the land and he was not liable to be evicted from the same. The Munsif referred the following issue arising out of the pleadings to the Assistant Collector, Agra, for decision: Whether the defendant No. 1 (Pritam Singh) has acquired adhivasi rights, if so, its effect The Assistant Collector held that the revenue records did not show that Pritam Singh was in possession at any time in or before the end of 1359 Fasli and that the entries in the Khasra relied upon by Pritam Singh had been fabricated to support his case. Consistently with the finding of the Assistant Collector, the Munsif passed judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. But in appeal to the District Court, Agra, that judgment was reversed. The Appellate Judge held that the revenue entries were genuine entries posted by the Patwari in discharge of his duty and that Pritam Singh was in possession in the year 1356 Fasli and also in 1359 Fasli and he had acquired the rights of an adhivasi. The plaintiffs then the dispute to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court reversed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court and restored the decree of the Munsif. With special leave, the heirs and legal representatives of Pritam Singh have appealed to this Court.
(3.) It was not the case of Pritam Singh that he has acquired title to the land by transfer or by adverse possession. Pritam Singh relied merely upon the entries in the Khasra for 1356 Fasli, and his claim of possession of the land in Fasli 1359, and upon statutory consequences arming from the entries under S. 20 (b) of the U P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951, and S. 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 31 of 1952. The U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951 was brought into force from July 1, 1952. By S. 20 certain right were conferred upon persons whose names were recorded in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land. The material clause (b) of S. 20 on which reliance is placed reads as follows. "20. Every person who (a) * * * * * (b) was recorded as occupant- (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 (r) of sub-section (1) of section 27 of the United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act. 1947, or (ii) * * * * *" 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 vs. Abdul Noor Khan, (1964) 7 SCR 800 that S. 20 of U. P. Act 1 of 1851 does not require proof of actual possession:it eliminates inquiries into disputed possession by accepting the record in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli or its correction before July 1, 1962. In view of that decision it must be held 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:cases of fraud apart, the entry in the record alone is relevant.;