PATIRAJI versus MAMTA & OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 15-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
PATIRAJI 
v. 
MAMTA & OTHERS 
March 15, 1973 
[J. M. SHELAT AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
681 
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 there-
fore 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 libera-
lity ,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. 
~BB 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 s.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J.-The question which arises for considera-
1ion 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 cer-
tain lands srtuated at Bibiganj, District Sultanpur. On the death 
of Ram Adhar on February 24, 1949 the appellant took proceed-
ings 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 ap

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