Decided on July 27,1965

Smt. Jamuna And Others Appellant
The Deputy Director Of Consolidation Campat Etawah And Others Respondents


K.B Asthana, J. - (1.)By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioners seek quashing of the revisional order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the appellate order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation passed in proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act) by a writ of certiorari.
(2.)The dispute in this petition is in respect of seven agricultural plots numbers 23, 72, 73, 82, 185, 187 and 188. Admittedly Dulichand, husband of Smt. Jamuna, Petitioner No. 1, was The tenant in chief of the said plots, in 1932, as alleged by the Petitioner, Dulichand leased out plots numbers 23, (sic)2 and 82 along with certain other plots with which we are not concerned to this writ petition, to Suraj Narain, a brother of the opposite party not a Sheo Narain and uncle of opposite party No. 5 Ram Sarowar. Dulichand died in 1936. Thereafter Smt. Jamuna Petitioner No. 1, as the widow of Dulichand, came in possession of the disputed plots. According to her the lease rights of Suraj Narain under lease of 1932 executed by her husband were extinguished and she executed a fresh lease for ten years of the disputed plots in favour of opposite parties numbers 4 and 5. It was further the case of the, Petitioner that after the expiry of the lease when the opposite parties members 4 and 5 who were sub tenants did not vacate she filed a suit under Sec. (sic). of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for possession Which, suit, however, was stayed when the village in which the disputed plots were situate came under consolidation operations under the Act. It is alleged by the Petitioner that in the statements of tenure holders published under Sec. 11 of the Act the names of opposite parties numbers 4 and 5 were wrongly shown as Sirdars of the disputed plots She thereupon filed an objection under Sec. 12 of the Act for correction of the entries by expunging the names of the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 and by entering her name in their place. This objection under Sec. 12 of the Act, in alleged by the Petitioner, could not be finally decided as the Statement of Proposals Under Sec. 19 were published. Then an objection Under Sub -section (2) of Sec. 20 was field by the Petitioner challenging the correctness of the entries in the name of the opposite parties. The Petitioner numbers 2 and 3 Raghubir and Munni Lal respectively, also joined the Petitioner in preferring he said objection as the Petitioner No. I had talked them to joint tenants with her. The Petitioner's case was that the opposite parties numbers 4 and 5 could not acquire a; status better than of an Asami inasmuch as they were the sub tenants of a land holder under a disability, she being a widow, and they were wrongly treated as Sirdars. In reply to the objection raised by the Petitioner the opposite party No. 4 Sheo Narain pleaded that he along with others was the sub tenant from the life time of Dulichand being an Adhivasi, became Sirdar by operation of law, It was further pleaded by the opposite party that the statement of compensation under Ch, IXA of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in which he was held to be Sirdar having become final it was not open to the Petitioner to reagitate the matter of Sirdari rights in the consolidation proceedings. It was also pleaded that the Petitioner not having filed any objection under Sec. 12 of the Act, her objection under Sub -section (2) of Sec. 20 of the Act was barred by Sub -section (7) of Sec. 12 of the Act.
(3.)The Consolidation Officer upheld the above said pleas raised on behalf of the opposite parties and dismissed the objection of the Petitioner. The Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation merely on the ground that it was not open to the Petitioner to agitate the matter of Sirdari rights, the proceeding under Sec. 1240G of, Chapter IXA of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act having become final against her. A revision by the Petitioner against the appellate order of Settlement Officer was dismissed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation; The sub lease granted by Dulichand to Sura] Narain covered plots numbers 22, 72 and 82 only from amongst the disputed plots. The finding of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, has been endorsed by the Dy. Director In his revisional order. It is thus clear that so far as the said three plots are concerned, the opposite, parties as brothers of Suraj Narain and as his successors would acquire Adhivasi rights for they cannot be said sub tenants of a person under disability. The decision of the Consolidation authorities in respect of the said three plots does not, therefore, require any interference as Petitioners being sub tenants and having acquired adhivasi rights would become Sirdars under the law.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.