NATH SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 21-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NAm SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS 
March 21, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH AND G. K. ~ITTER, JJ.J 
U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1952 s. 20(b)(i)-resp0n-
dents shown in record of rights for l356F c..r sub-tenants-if to be regard-
ed as occupants entitled to 'Adhivasi~ rights-er whether inquiry to be 
about pr.opriezy of entry. 
In 1945 one R who was the thekadat of the proprietary rights of a 
village, sued the appellants and the respondents, other than tho first res• 
pondent Board of Revenue, far their ejectment under section 171 Of the 
U.P. Tenancy Act. alleging that the appellants bad illegally sub-let the 
lands tp the respondents. The appellants and tbe respondents made a 
common case denying the alleged sub-letting and stating that the entries 
in the villa8'e records about the respondents being sub-tenants were erron-
eous. 
The suit was dismissed in March, 1946, I.e., towards the end of 
1353 F on the ground that there was no sub-letting and the entries were 
not correct No attempt was made by anyone to bring the village records 
in harmony with this decision and the respondents continued to figure as 
suf>..tenants in these records. 
On his attention being drawn to this, the 
Lekbpal, on his own authority. removed the entries in favour of the res-
pondents from the records for the year ending 1358 F, but the entries for 
the year 1356 F were left undisturbed as it was not within the Lekhpal's 
jurisdiction to alter these. 
After the .U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into 
force in 1952 i.e .. at the beginning of 1360 F, on the strength of the 
Khasra and Khatauni of 1356 F, the respondents claimed•.Afiiivasl rights 
under section. 20(b) (i) of the Act and filed six suits praying for the re-
covery of possession of. the lands under s. 232 of the Act. They lost the. 
suits before the sub Divisional Officer and ·Additional Commissioner . of 
Varanasi ·but succeeded in appeals to the Board of Revenue. 
The appellants thereafter filed writ petitions for quashing the Of\(ers 
of the· Boatd; 1111d the High Court although of the view that the impugned 
orders of the Board of Revenue were wrong, held that the Board had 
jurisdiction to interpret section 20(b) as it thought proper; and as the 
orders passed by it were final without being subject to any appeal. they 
could not be quashed by certiorari as being mere errors of law. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended, inter alia, on behalf of 
the appellants that (i) the correctness of the entry in the record of rights 
of 1356 F could be ~one into and was capable of challenge in a court of 
law exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226; (ii) in the present case there 
was an adjudication in March 1946 that the respondents were not sub-
tenants; consequently, unless they showed that they bad thereafter become 
sub-tenants, the benefit of the entry in their favou'r in 1356 F could not 
be availed of by them; (iii) in the Khasra of 1356 F 
the respondents 
were only recorded as sub-tenants but not as occupants and 
could not 
therefore get the benefit of s. 20(b)(i) of the Act. 
HELD : Dismissing the appeals. 
The record of rights for the year 1356 F 
had not been corrected 
afte'rwards. The court had to go by the entry in the record of rights and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
i 
H 
B 
c 
.D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NATH SINGH v. BOARD OF REVENUE (Mitter, 1.) 
499 
no enquiry need be made as to when the respondents became sub-tenants 
after the decision in the suit filed by R. As between the tenant and the 
slJ!>.tenant, the entry in the record of rights in favour of the sub-tenant 
made him the occupant entitled to the adhivcsi rights under s. 20 of the 
Act. !504 G-Hl 
The Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil-ul-Rahman and others, 
[1961] 1 S.C.R. 564; Amba Prasad v. Abdul Noor Khan & Ors. [1964] 7 
S.C.R. 800; Ram Dular Singh & Anr. v. Babu Sukh Ram & Ors., (1963] 
A.L.J. 667; and Nanakchand v. Board of Revenue U,.P. [1955] A.L.J. 408; 
applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals Nos. 621 
to 626 of 1965. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 6, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writs 
Nos. 1428 to 1433 of 1961. 
1. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellants (in all 
the appeals). 
S. P. Sinha and M. I. Khuwaja, for respondents Nos. 2 to 
4 (In all the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. These six appeals by special !.:ave arise from a 
common judgment of the

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