- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. The point involved in this writ petition is as to whether tenant of mortgagee of agricultural land has been conferred any right under U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act or not. All the three courts below decided the matter against the petitioner by holding that petitioner being tenant of mortgagee of agricultural land has got no right under U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
(2.) PRIOR to start of consolidation, matter had been agitated in different Courts. At the time of notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U. P. C. H. Act), matter was pending before Second Appellate Court, i. e. , Board of Revenue. In view of Section 5 of U. P. C. H. Act proceeding abated and thereafter matter was agitated before Consolidation Officer, Gorakhpur. The matter related to plot No. 179 situate in Village Saintal, Tehsil Basgaon, Gorakhpur. Objections were filed by the petitioner. C. O. through the order dated 8. 1. 1971 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition rejected the objections. Against the said order, appeal was filed being Appeal Nos. 1968, 1969 and 2072. The appeals were dismissed on 17. 7. 1971 by Assistant S. O. C. , Gorakhpur. Another appeal, against order of C. O. had also been filed being Appeal No. 1970. Said appeal was also dismissed by Assistant S. O. C. on same date, Le. , 17. 7. 1971. The said order is contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Thereafter petitioner filed revisions against the said orders being Revision Nos. 849, 850 and 864. D. D. C. , Gorakhpur dismissed the revisions on 2. 9. 1972. hence this writ petition. I have discussed the question involved in this writ petition in detail in the authority of Bansh Narain v. D. D. C. . 2006 (101) RD 478 : 2007 (1) AWC 394. In the said authority, I mainly placed reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment In Chondrtfca Prasad v. Pulla, AIR 2000 SC 1785 : 2000 (91) RD 340 : 2000 (2) AWC 1559 (SC ). Apart from the said authority, I also placed reliance upon the other Supreme Court authorities also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid authorities relate to mortgage by holders of tenancy rights and not to mortgages executed by the Zamindars in respect of 'sir', ' khudkasht' or 'grove' land. In the aforesaid Supreme Court authority, Section 21 (1) (d) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was considered, which is quoted below : " A mortgagee in actual possession from a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clauses (b) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
(3.) THE above clause does not refer to Section 18 (1) (a), which deals with landlords in possession of or held or due to be held by a intermediary as 'sir', 'khudkasht' or intermediary grove (intermediary means Zamindar ). It is for the reason that the rights of mortgagee of an estate (meaning thereby 'sir', ' khudkasht ' or grove of Zamindar) are mentioned under Section 14 of the Act. Relevant portion of which is quoted below : " 14. Estate in possession of a mortgagee with possession.- (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), a mortgagee in possession of an estate or share therein shall, with effect from the date of vesting, cease to have any right to hold or possess as such any land in such estate. (2) Where any such land was in the personal cultivation of the mortgagee on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting- (a) if it was sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage, the same shall, for purposes of Section 18, be deemed to be the sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor or his legal representative (b) if it was not sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage, the mortgagee shall, subject to his paying to the State Government within six months from the date of vesting an amount equal to five times the rent calculated at hereditary rates applicable on the dace immediately preceding the date of vesting be deemed, for purposes of Section 19, to have held such land on the date aforesaid as a hereditary tenant thereof at the said rate of rent. " Just as under Section 21 of the Act, there is no right conferred upon the tenant of mortgagee, similarly under Section 14 also no right is conferred upon the tenant of mortgagee. Accordingly, the view taken by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of Chandrica Prasad will equally apply to tenants of mortgagees of 'sir' as under Section 14 of the Act, they have not been conferred any right. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon an authority of Supreme Court in Ram Prasad v. A. D. C. , 1994 RD 299 (SC ). However, the said authority does not help the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not 'been able to point out any provision of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, under which a tenant from mortgagee of a 'sir' land of a Zamindar may have any right.;