Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) ON 8 -12 -1960 Smt. Bilasi, the predecessor of Respondent No. 4 applied Under Section 134 of the UPZA and LR Act for the grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad. The same day she deposited ten times the rent. On 27 -6 -1962 she sold her Share in the holdings in favour of the Appellants. On 17 -5 -1963 the SDO passed an order for the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad to Smt. Bilasi. The Respondents filed an appeal before the Commr. against that order and obtained an order of stay of the handing over of the Sanad to Smt. Bilasi. The appeal was, however, stayed by the Commr. when the village came under the consolidation operations.
(2.) IN consolidation proceedings the Appellants applied for mutation of their names in place of Smt. Bilasi. This was resisted by the other co -sharers of Smt. Bilasi on the ground that Smt. Bilasi being only a Sirdar had no right to transfer her share to the Appellants and under the UPZA and LR Act transfer of sirdari rights being void the transferees acquired no title. The CO upheld the defence and rejected the application of the transferees; for mutation. This order was, however, reversed in appeal and the order of the CO was modified. In revision, however, the Dy. DC reversed the order of the SO (C) and restored that of the CO. Aggrieved the transferees came to this Court in a writ petition which failed leading to the present appeal. Under Section 137(1) of the UPZA and LR Act it was provided that upon the grant of a certificate the sirdar shall, from the date thereof, became and be deemed to be Bhumidhar of the holding. By U.P., Land Laws (amendment) Act No. 21 of 1962 which same into force on 13 -12 -1962 this provision was amended. After the amendment it provided that upon the grant of the certificate Under Sub -section (1) the Sirdar shall from the date on which the amount referred to in Sub -section (1) of Section 134 has been deposited will become and be deemed to be the Bhumidhar. Thus the Bhumidhari rights which accrued with effect from the date of the grant of the Sanad under the unamended provision were to accrue from the date of making of the deposit of 10 times the rent under the amended provision. In the present case the order for the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad was made on 17 -5 -196(sic). On that date Section 137(2) had in fact been amended.
(3.) IN Dhani Ram v. Jokhu , 1971 AWR 32 it was held that the amendments made to Section 137 of the UPZA and LR Act by the Amending Act, of 1962 are not retrospective in the sense that the amended provision will be deemed to be in existence from the date of the commencement of the UPZA and LR Act. We have no quarrel with this proposition. In Smt. Nema v. Dy. DC , 1971 AWR 883 it was held that Under Section 137, the accrual of bhumidhari rights depends upon the event of the grant of the certificate. When the certificate is granted, then the bhumidhari rights accrue. The effect of the 1962 amendment is to make the accrual retrospective. Since the accrual of the right operates from the date of the grant of the certificate, the amendment to Section 137(2) relating to the retrospectively of the accrual of the right, would apply to grants made on or after the date when the amending Act came into operation. So from the date on which the amendment to Section 137(2) came on the statute book, it will affect and operate upon all certificates granted on or after that date. So construed the; amending Act of 1962 is not given any retrospective effect. It operates prospectively, that is, upon grants made after the amendment came into force. We are in agreement with this view. Since in the present case the order for the grant of the certificate was made on 17 -5 -1963 the amended section will apply with the result that the accrual of right will relate back to the date of deposit often times the rent, that is, 6 -12 -1960. Smt. Bilasi will be deemed to be Bhumidhar from 8 -12 -1960. So the transfer made by her was a valid one because it was made by a Bhumidhar.;