Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It raises a short but neat question of law.
(2.) THE plots in dispute constituted sirdari holding of Sahdeo and his brother. Sahdeo deposited ten times of the rent on 6-11-1962 and made an application for the grant of a bhumidhari sanad. The same day Sahdeo executed a deed of sale of a share in the holding in dispute in favour of respondents 4 to 6. The sale deed was registered the next day that is, on 7-11-1962. Sahdeo died in the night intervening the 23rd and 24th November, 1962. In due course the bhumidari Sanad was issued in the name of Ram Deo, the son of Sahdeo, on 29th March, 1965. On commencement of proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, respondents 4 to 6 filed an objection that they are also entitled to the plots in dispute on the basis of the sale deed executed by the erstwhile tenant Sahdeo, in their favour Ram Deo. the son of Sahdeo as well as Ramayan, the son of Sahdeo's brother, contested the claim of respondents 4 to 6. The Consolidation Officer repelled the claim. He held that the sanad was issued in the name of Ram Deo and, as such, Sahdeo never became the bhumidhar, and he continued to be a sirdar till his death. As a sirdar he could not transfer his interest in the holding. On appeal the Settlement Officer confirmed this finding. The respondents filed a revision. The Deputv Director of Consolidation took a different view. He held that on the grant of the certificate, Sahdeo would be deemed to have become a bhumidhar with effect from the date of deposit, i. e. 6-11-1962 and hence could validly transfer his interest. The death of Sahdeo in the meantime made no difference to the acquisition of bhumidhari rights in his favour. This view of the Deputy Director is challenged in the present petition.
(3.) THE relevant provisions are Sections 134 and 137 of the U P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 134 requires a sirdar to deposit ten times the revenue and make an application. It entitles the sirdar, with effect from the date on which the amount has been deposited, to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137. Section 137(1) says that if the application has been duly made and the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the declaration mentioned in Section 134, he shall grant a certificate to that effect. Sub-section (2) of Section 137 reads:-- "(2). Upon the grant of the certificate, under Sub-section (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: (b) be liable for payment of such reduced amount on account of land revenue for holding or his share therein, as the case may be, as shall be one half of the land revenue payable or deemed to be payable by him therefor on the date of application." The proviso and the Explanation are not material, Sub- section (2-A) of Section 137 says: "Where a certificate is granted on a date other than first day of the agricultural year, the land revenue payable by him under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) for the remainder of the agricultural year in which it is granted shall be determined in such manner as may he prescribed " The opening clause of Sub-section (2) as enacted originally said: "Upon the grant of the certificate under Sub-section (1), the sirdar shall (from the beginning of the agricultural year next after) the date thereof The U. P. Amending Act 16 of 1953 deleted the bracketted words. So, previously the effect of the grant of the certificate commenced from the beginning of the agricultural year next after the date of the certificate. Since the amendment, the legal incidents of the certificate operate from the date of its grant.;