- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Madhu Tandon, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. The dispute relates to plot No.312/1 area 1.06 acres situate in village Chakia, Tappa Bhatni, Pergana Shahjahanpur, Tehsil and District Deoria. During the consolidation operation, Gaon Sabha filed objection against the recorded tenure holders over the said plots. The Gaon Sabha came forward with the case that the aforesaid plot is a pasture land and is wrongly recorded in the basic year in favour of the petitioners herein. The case of the Gaon Sabha has been accepted by all the three authorities below.
(2.) CHALLENGING the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and of Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners took the aforesaid plot from the Ex-Zamindar. A suit under section 59/61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was filed against Chhedi and others who were co-sharers in Khewat Khata No.1 wherein the plot in dispute is comprised. Petitioners' names were recorded on the basis of the decree passed in the aforesaid suit. An application to recall the judgment and decree in the said suit was filed by the Gaon Sabha which was ultimately rejected. The submission is that in view of the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit, the authorities below were not justified in expunging the names of the petitioners over the plot in question. Ms. Madhu Tandon, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that in view of section 8 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the decree passed in the aforesaid suit is not binding on the State. Elaborating the argument it was submitted by her that there is ample evidence on record to show that in the revenue record the plot in dispute was recorded as pasture land. The said pasture land could not be let out or transferred in any manner by the Zamindar in view of the Section 8 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act after 8th of August, 1946. Further it was submitted by her that in the present case the transfer in favour of the petitioners is after that date. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) A bare perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation would show that the land in dispute was recorded as grass growing land in the revenue year 1355 to 1359 which corresponds to the year 1946 and onwards. Section 8 of the UPZA & LR Act provides that any contract for grazing or gathering of produce from land or the collection of forest produce or fish from any forest or fisheries entered into after the eighth day of August, 1946, between an intermediary and any other person in respect of any private forest, fisheries, or land lying in such estate shall become void with effect from the date of vesting. In order that section is attracted it is necessary that such contract shall be entered into after 8th of August, 1946 and shall be in respect of any forest rights, fisheries, or land lying in such estate. The reason is that if the estate is vested any contract with respect to anything produced or coming from the same also becomes incapable of performance since the date of vesting. The importance of date 8th of August, 1946 is on that date the United Province Legislative Assembly passed a resolution which reads as follows:- "This Assembly accepts, the principle of abolition of Zamindari system in this Province which involves intermediaries between the cultivator and the State, cannot resolve that the rights of such intermediaries should be payment of equitable compensation and that the Government should appoint committee to prepare a scheme for this purpose." ;