CHANDRIKA PRASAD versus PULLO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1145 · Decided: 10-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_..... 
"' , 
CHANDRIKA PRASAD 
v. 
PULLO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 10,2000 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Lmid Laws: 
U.P. ZamindariAbolitionandlandRefonns Act, 1950(1of1951)-Secs. 
20, 21(1)(d), 18(1), 4(1), 3(8) 3(26) and 229B(3)-U.P. Tenancy Act 1939-
Secs. 3(22), 3(23)-Appellant'sfatherclaiming adhivasi status as a Sub-tenant 
of mortgagee-Claim of respondents as purchases from fixed tenants-Held, 
mortgagee not a tenant as per provisions of the Act and hence appellant not a 
sub-tenant-Further held, appellant is only a licensee not entitled to adhivasi 
rights. 
U.P. Lmid Revenue Act, 1901 (3 of 1901)-Sec. 28-Before recording 
anyone as occupant in khasra or khatanni 1356 Fasli on the basis of sub-
tenancy it has to be shown that the entry is one of genuine sub-tenant to enable 
him to get the status of adhivasi. 
Wonts and phrases-"tenant ''e'sub-tenant "-Meaning of in the context 
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Lmid Reforms Act, 1950. 
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed interest in some agricultural lands 
under Sec. 229B(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land 
Reforms Act, 1950 on the ground that the original tenants-fixed tenants 
had transferred their interests to one 'S' who, thereafter has executed a 
sale deed in their favour. The Appellant's father 'R' put forward his claim 
for the aforesaid two plots of lands before the Consolidation Officer. The 
basis of his claim was that he was in possession of these two plots of lands 
in the years 1856 and 1859 Fasli as sub-tenant of mortgagees and accord-
ingly adhivasi rights were available to him under Section 20 of the U.P. 
Act. 
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the said claim and filed objections. 
They contended before the Consolidation Officer that after the sale deed in 
their favour they were in actual physical possession of the plots in dispute 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
and that 'R' had surrendered his rights over the plots in dispute in favour 
H 
1145 
1146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
of the fixed tenants and others some time about 15 or 16 years back. 
---
The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections filed by Respond-
ent Nos. 1 and 2. The Appellant pursued the claim put forward by his 
father after his death. But his claim was rejected by the Consolidation 
B 
Officer. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Con-
solidation) which was dismissed. 
_..; 
The Appellant then filed a revision before the Deputy Director of 
Consolidation, who allowed the same and rendered the case to the Settle-
ment Officer (Consolidation). After remand, the appellate authority, namely, 
c 
the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the Appellant's appeal and 
held that 'R' had acquired the adhivasi rights in the lands in question. 
....... 
However, a finding was recovered against 'R' that he had surren-
dered his rights in favour of the fixed tenants. 
D 
r 
The Appellant as well as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed two revision 
applications before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy 
Director, Consolidation allowed the claim of the Appellant and rejected the 
revision filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was held that there was no 
E 
surrender by 'R' in favour of the fiX4ld tenants. It was further held that 
since 'R' was in actual cultivatory possession in the years 1856 and 1859 
Fasli, as such, he had acquired the rights under Section 20 of the U.P. Act. 
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, 
which was dismissed. Single Judge held that 'R' was recorded in the column 
F 
of sub-tenant and that he was a sub-tenant of the: mortgagee and, as such, 
he had acquired rights under Sedion 20 of the U .P. Act. The Single Judge 
---..; 
also confirmed the findings of the courts below that the mortgagee had led 
out the plots in dispute in due course of management like a prudent owner. 
,,_-
'.--
G 
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed Special Appeal before the Division 
Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by its 
.....
impugned Judgment, relying upon the full Bench Judgment reported in 
>-
1974 A.L.J. 706, held that if a person is recorded in sub-tenants column 
.......
and another person is recorded as mortgagee in the remarks column, none 
H 
of them will be deemed to be a recorded occupant. The Division Bench also 
CHANDRIKA PRASAD v. PULLO (DEAD) BY LRS. 
1147 
~ ·-
rejected the contention of the Appellant that, in any case, th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.