MUSTAQ ALI KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 4 · Decided: 30-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MUSTAQ ALI KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
UP. 
2l(l)(h}. 
NOVEMBER 30, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Zamindari Abolition and Land Refomis Act, 1950 : Section 
C 
Disabled person:-Successor in interest of-Also a disabled person:-
Held such a person is Asami and therefore Sirdar. 
Disabled Sirdai-Sub lease of land to Adhivasis-Death of Sirdai-
Father successor in interest of Sirdai-Also a disabled person-Claim of 
D Asami right by fathei--o4dhivasis in possession and enjoyment of land for 
over 45 yeai:~quitable directiollS by Supreme Courr-DirectiollS lo Ad-
hivasis to pay half the market value to successor in interes~eclaration of 
Adhivasis as Bhumidars. 
The appellant's son, a disabled Sirdar, sub leaoed 40.99 acres of 
E land, which is the subject matter of this appeal, to respondents 3 to 10. 
Subsequent to the death of his son the appellant, also a disabled person, 
succeeded to his estate. The respondents, who were cultivating the land 
and have Bbumiswami rights, claimed the status as Adhivasis under the 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 while the appellant 
F 
claimed the Asami right. The Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the 
appellant's claim and held that the respondents became Adhivasis under 
the Act. On appeal it was held that the appellant is a disabled person and 
that therefore, he became the Asami. On revision the Deputy Director 
(Consolidation) held that the appellant was not entitled to the status as a 
G disabled person. The High Court upheld the order of the Deputy Con-
solidation Officer. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. A disabled person and a successor-in-interest who is also 
H disabled is also Asami and, therefore, he is Sirdar. [6-FJ 
4 
MUSTAQ ALI KHAN v. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 
5 
· 2. The respondents in possession and enjoyment of land for over 45 A 
years have been claiming the status as Adhivasis and thus entitled to claim 
Bhumidar rights under the Act. They are all small holders cultivating the 
land for their livelihood. Considered from this perspective, equity should 
be worked out. Accordingly, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) is 
directed to determine the prevailing market rate of the lands as on B 
February 26, 1970, the date on which the Consolidation Officer has upheld 
the claim of the respondents as Adivasis. The respondents should pay half 
of the market value to the appellant and on payment they should he 
declared as Bhumidars. (6-G-H, 7-Al 
' 
Richpal v. Desh Raj, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 368, relied on. 
Dwarika Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1981) AIJ 484, 
approved. 
Smt. Maya v. Raja Du/aji & Ors., (1970) AIJ 476, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 788 of 
1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.71 of the Allahabad High 
Couct in C. Misc. W.P. No. 627 of 1971. 
E.C. Agrawala, Atul Sharma and Anant V. Palli for the Appellant. 
Ambrish Kumar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
c 
D 
E 
F 
This appeal speaks of several events that have taken place during the 
pendency of the litigation. About 40.99 acres comprising of Plot Nos. 63, 
66, 96, 34, 53, 37 & 102 situated in Village Lakhimpur, Pargana Suar, in 
former Rampur State are the subject matter of this appeal. It is the claim 
of the appellant that his son is disabled Sirdar. Consequently, he had G 
sub-leased the properties to respondents 3 to 10. On his demise on October 
21, 1954, the appellant-his father succeeded to the estate. He also is a 
disabled person. The U .P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 
1950 (for short 'the Act') was brought into force in the State of Rampur 
with effect from January 26, 1956. The respondents claimed the status as H 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Adhivasis as they were cultivating the land and have Bhumiswami rights. 
The appellant claimed the Asami right. The Assistant Settlement Officer 
by his proceedings dated September 30, 1963 negatived the claims of the 
appellant and held that the respondents became Adhivasis under the Act. 
On appeal, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the appellant is a 
B disabled person and that, therefore, he became the Asami. On revision, the-: 
Deputy Director (Consolidation) while holding that the appellant is a 
disabled person following the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in 
Smt. Maya v. Raja Du/aji and Ors., (1970
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.