_681_
**A**
**B**
# c
**D**
E
F
G
_U.P._ _Zamindarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act,_ 1950, _s._ 20(b)(i)_AdivlJSI_ _rights_ _under-Who_ _is_ _entitled_ _to._
The appellant filed a suit under s. 20(b)(i) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the basis that her name was
recorded as an occupant in the Khasra of 1356 Fasli, that she bad therefore become an Adivasi, and was consequently entitled to p<l680S8ion of
the la!!ds from which she was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondent&
The suit was dismissed but was allowed in appeal by the Additional Com·
missioner. A further appeal by the r.Spondents to the Board of Revenue
having been dismissed, they filed a writ petition in the High Court which
was allowed on the ground that the entry in favour of the appellant was
for a part of the year only and that therefore she was not entitled to the
Adivasi rights.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : Under the section the Adivasi rights can be claimed by those
persons only who are recorded as o=p.,,ts for the whole of the Fasli year
1356. The rights conferred by the section are available also to trespassers.
It could not have been the policy of the Act that everyone of thooe fleet
ing trespassers who might be found in occupation at the time of the tri·
annual inspections, should be given recognition and be made eligible for the
acquisition of Adivasi rights. It is neither logic nor good sense that the
last entry-holder should be so recognised, because, such a construction
**would** **on1y** **encourage** **greater** lawlessnes~ **amongst** **trespassers,** **every one**
**of** **whom** **will** **make** **a frantic attempt** **to** **be** **last** **in** **the** **queue.** **Therefore,**
there is no justification for construing the provision with greater liberality,than the language warrants. Special rigllts having been conferred by
the Act they ought to be subject to the special Jimitatioos imposed by t~
Act. [689C·D, A; 690A·B]
The Fasli year 1356 commenced on July I, 1943 and ended on June
30, 1949; and the appellant's name was entered as an occupant only from
February 24, 1949. As the entry doea not show that the appellant was in
occupation of the land throughout the year she was not entitled to the
Adivasi rights under the section. [690E]
_Shyam Sunar Lal_ v. _Mangali and Or!.,_ [1963] A.L.J. 286, _Ram Chan-_
_der and_ _A.nr._ v. _Chootu_ 19'57 A.L.J. 24 (Revenue) and _Glrdhari_ v.
_Raghubir Singh etc._ 1958, A.L.J. 183 (Revenue) approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 1324 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 31, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
No. 344 of 1966.
_Jagdish_ _Swarup_ and _R. K. Bhatt,_ for the appellant
_C._ _B._ _Agarwala_ and _C._ _P._ _Lal,_ for the respondents.
PATIRAJI
### _v._
MAMTA & OTHERS
_March_ 15, 1973
[J. M. SHELAT AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
~BB SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 s.c.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J.-The question which arises for considera1ion in this appeal is whether rthe appellant Patiraji is entitled to the
"'Adhivasi" rights under section 20(b)(i) of the U.P. Zam\ndari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ("the Act").
One Ram Adhar and the respondents were co-tenants of certain lands srtuated at Bibiganj, District Sultanpur. On the death
of Ram Adhar on February 24, 1949 the appellant took proceedings under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for a declaration that she
was the widow of Ram Adhar and as such, had become a co. tenant along with the respondents. The appellant succeeded
before the Assistant Collector but in appeal, the Additional Com
missioner and then fue Board of Revenue took a contrary view,
holding that the appellant was not the widow of Ram Adhar. The
judgment of the Board of Revenue is dated July 1, 1954.
In the meanwhile, the Act had come into force on July 1,
1952. The appellall!I then brought the present suit, treated as one
under section 20(b) read with secltion 232 of the Act. The case
of the appellant is that her name was recorded as an occupant i11
the Khasra of 1356F, that she has therefore l)ecome an Adhivasl
under section 20(~) (i) and is consequently entitled to possession
<>f the lands from which she was unlawfully dispossessed by the
respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit but the Add,itional
Commissioner allowed Patiraji's appeal and decreed her suit. Res'
pondents carried an appeal against '.he decision of the Additional
Commissioner to the Board of Revenue but that appeal was dis'
missed. The respondents then filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Allahabad, which was allowed by a learned single Judge
of that court. He held that. the entry in favour of the appellant
appeared in the Khasra of' 1356F for a part of the year only and
therefore she was not entiled to the Adhivasi rights. Special Appeal
No. 344 of 1956 against'the judgment was dismissed by a Division
Bench _in limine_ on October 31, 1956. This is an appeal by special
leave against that decision.
The sole foundation of the appellant's claim is an entry which
appears in the Khasra of 1356F, which is to the following effects
"Ram Adhar Pandey Bakasht Waris Baqa biz Smt.
Patraji Motwafli Bewa Ram Adhar P anedv Tarikh
24-2-49 Se", that is to say "Ram Adhar Pande in culti
vation heir in possession Smt. Patiraji widow of deceased
Ram Adhar Pandey from 24-2-49".
The importance of this entry consists in the special benefit which
such entries confer under section 20(b)(l) of the Act :
## "20. Every person who ............. .
A
B
# c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
# c
D
E
F
G
H
PATIRAJI _v._ MAMTA _(Chandrachud,_ _J.)_ 68&
(b) was recorded as occupant
(i) of any land ........ in the Khasra or
Khatauni al 1356F. . . . . . . . shall ..... .
be called Adhivasi of the land and shall,
subject to the provisions of thjs Act, be
entitled to take or retain possession thereof."
None of the four explanations to section 20 is relevant for the
present purpose.
Looking at the provision contained in section 20(b){i), it
seems «> us plain that the Adhivasi rights can be claimed by those
persons only who are recorded as occupants for t!ie whole of the
Fasli year 1356. It is important to remember that ithe rights conferred by section 20(b ){i) are available even and mostly to trespassers.· Clearly therefore, there is, in the first i,nlllance, .no justification for construing the provision with greater liberality than
thelanguage IJlllfrants. Special rights conlerred by the Act ought
to be subject to the special limitations imposed by the Act.
Apart from this aspect, ·any other view of section 20(b)(i)
would make it unworkable in practice and would set the pace for
lawlessness amongst trespassers. If different persons 'are in occup
ation of a land during different parts of the year, whom shall the
court recognise as an Adhivasi and by what test shaH the court pick
and choose ? Under the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual,
the Lekhpal, has to make three field-to-field inspections of every
village in his _halka,_ beginrung respectively on August 15th,
January 15th1and April 15th _cl_ every year. (Rule A-55). On
the basis of these inspections, the Lekhpal has to make entries in
the 'Khasra', that is to say in the field-book, in form No. P-A-3
taking charge, on the sly, of a _/Jona vacantia._ When the trujl owner
is away, the trespassers will play and the law which governs then1
is might'is right. It cannot be the policy of the Act that everyo11e
of these fleeting trespassers must find recognition and be made
eligible for the acquisition of Adhivasi rights. None of them, in .
(Rule' A-60). If a person other than a tenure-holder as classified
in Part I or Part II of the Khatauni, is found to be in actual occupation, his name is to be recorded in the 'Remarks' column (column
No. 21) as "baqabza so and so" (Rule A-71, para 3). It may
so happen, and decided cases show that it does so happen, that
different persons are found to be in possession of a land at the
time of the tri-annual inspeotiQns. The Lekhpal has to enter their
names as occupants, mar be in the remarks columri, but the picture
emerging at the close of the year will reveal that different persons
were in occupation of the land-some one during the Kharif
season, some one during the Rabi season and some one probably
our opinion, can qualify for these valuable rights. It was urged
690 SUPREME COURT REPOl'-TS (1973] 3 s.c.R.
that 1he last entry-holder should be recognised as an occupant
to the exclusion of others but there is' neither logic nor good sense
in such a course·. The last holder may have been in possession for
a fra<ltional part of the year and such possession may adventitiously
coincide with the April visit of the Lekhpal. Besides, such a
-construction, as said already, will only encourge greater lawlessness amongst trespassers. Every one of them will make a
fra11tic attempt to be last in the queue.
Rightly therefore, the High Court of Allahabad and the Board
of Revenue; U.P. have been uniformly taking the view that the
right conferred by section 20(b)(i) can be availed of by those
persons only who are recorded· as occupants for the entire Fasli
year 1356 and not by those who are recorded as occupants for a
part of 'i:he year. (See _Shyam Sunar Lal_ v. _Mangali and_ _Ors._ (1)
_Ram Chander and Anr._ v. _Chhotu;(_ _[2 ]_ _)_ _Girdhari_ v. Raghu~ir _Singh_
_.etc.(_ _[8 ]_ _)_ It would seem that the Board of Revenue struck a discorda.nt note in the instant case only, but it is necessary to point
out that the Board rested its decision on the ·circumstance that
the appellant was the "sole heir" of Ram Adhar. In making that
assumption the Board was in error, because in the earlier proceedings it was held that the appellant was not the widow of Ram
Adhar and she traced on other line of heirship.
It is clear from the entry on which the appellant relies that her
name was entered as an occupant as from February 24, 1949.
The Fasli year 1356 concerned on July 1, 1948 and en<)ed on
June 30, 1949. As the entry does not show that the appellant
was in occupation of the land iliroughout the year, she is nqt entitled to the Adhivasi rights under section 20(b) (i) of the Act.
Some attempt was made to contend that the appellant was
shown as a joint occupant along with the Adhar during the life
time of the latter and therefore she must be held to have been in
possession for the whole year. An uncertified copy of the entry
to which counsel drew our attention does not bear out this sub
mission and in fact such a contention was never raised at any
earlier stage. .
In the result we confirm the judgment of the High Court and
-dismiss the appeal with costs.
A
B
# c
D
E
F
G
V.P.S.
~~(t)~~ ~~1963~~ ~~A.L.J. 286.~~
(2) 1957 A.L.J. 24 (Revenue).
(3) 1958 A.LI. 183 (Revenue).
Appeal dismissed.
