LexAMBA PRASAD versus ABDUL NOOR KHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964
Ap·i/ 17
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[196~]
AMBAPRASAD
v.
ABDUL NOOR KHAN AND ORS.
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
s. 20-Explanation II to s. 20-Suit for possession by occupant
on the basis of entry in Khasra for 1356F-Entry not corrected
before date of vesting-Its effect-Whether correctness of entry
be questioned subsequently-Whether plaintiff required to
prove actual possession.
On October 10, 1953, the respondents filed suits under s. 232
read with s. 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition, and Land Re-
forms Act, 1950 against the appellant before the Sub-Divisional
Officer. Before the coming into operation of the Abolition Act
the appellant (Amba Prasad) was Zamindar of the· disputed
land. The names of the respondents were recorded in column
23 (miscellaneous) in the Khasra for the year 1356 Fasli as
persons in possession of the disputed land. The respondents
claimed ad!hivasi rights under s. 20 of the Abolition Act because
they were recorded as occupants of the fields in dispute in
the Khasra for 1356 Fasli. The common case of the respondents
was: (i) that they were in possession of the suit land (ii) that
they were dispossessed after June 30, 1948 by the appellant,
(iii) that as they were recorded occupants in 1356F they were
not required to prove actual possession. The case of the appel-
lant was that the entry was fraudulently made after July 1,
1949. Th1'5e suits were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
On appeal, the Additional Commissioner held ·.that the respon-
dents had acquired the adhivasi rights.
Against this order
Amba Prasad (the appellant) appea·led to the Board of Revenue.
The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeals. The appellant
then filed appeals in this Court.
Held: (i) Under s. 20 of the Abolition Act (U. P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act) a person continues as an
adhivasi after July 1, 1952. provided he is in possession or was
evicted after June 30, HMS. If he was evicted after June 30,
1948 he is entitled to regain possession in spite of any order
or decree to the contrary.
'
(ii) The words "recorded as occupants" in s. 20 of the Abo-
lition Act mean persons recorded as occupants in the Khasra
or Khatauni for 1356 Fasli (1-7-48 to 30-6-49). Such persons do
not include an intermediary. The word "occupant" must mean
a person holding the land in possession or actual enjoyment.
Mediate possession (except where che immediate
possessor
holds on behalf of the mediate possessor) is of no consequence.
(iii) The appellant was not entitled to raise the plea of the
correctness of the entry in Khasra because the entry was not
corrected before the date of vesting (1-7-52) as required by
Explanation (ii) to s. 20 of the Abolition· Act.
(iv) The title to possession as adhivasi depends on the
entries in the Khasra or Khatauni for the year 1356 Fasli. Sec-
tion 20 of the Abolition Act does not require the proof of actual
possession. Therefore, s. 20 eliminates inquiries into disputed
possession by accepting the record in the Khasra or Khatauni
of 1356F. or its correction before July 1, 1952.
i.l
'7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
801
1961
The Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil-u!-Rehman,
{1961] 1 S.C.R. 564, referred to.
Amba
Pmaad
T.
Lala Nanak Chand v. Board of Revenue, U. P., 1955 A.L.J. Abdul Noor Klia11
408, Ram Dular Singh v. Babu Sukh Ram, 1963 A.L.J. 667,
and Otli<r•
Bhal Singh v. Bhop and Anr., 1963 A.L.J. 288 and Sugriva v.
Mu~hi etc., 1963 A.L.J. 17 (Rev.), approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jua1sDICTION: Civil
Appeals
Nos.
680 to 682 of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judg-
ment and decree dated February ~. 1960 of the Board of
Revenue, U. P. in petitions Nos. 203 to 205 of 1958-59.
J. P. Goyal, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
Brijbans Kishore and Ramesh B. Saxena, for respon-
dents Nos. 1 to 3 (in all the appeals).
April 17, 1964. The judgment of the Court was delivered
by
HmAYATULLAH, J.-This judgment shall also govern the HidayaJul/.ak,
J
disposal of C. A. 681 of 1963. These are appeals by special
leave of this Court against a common order of the Board of
Revenue, U.P. dated February 3, 1960 disposing of three
.appeals. Civil Appeal No. 682 of 1963 (since compromised)
was also against the same decision. The appellant in each of
these appeals is one Amba Prasad who was the Zamiridar of
village Rhonda, Pargana anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.