LexRICHPAL SINGH & ANR. versus DESH RAJ SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
368
RICHPAL SINGH & ANR.
v.
DESH RAJ SINGH & ORS.
August 25, 1981
(V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND A. VARAOARAIAN, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, section 21 ( 1) (h),
construction of-Wht!ther the lessor{ landlord should not only be "disabled person"
on the relevant dates, but that he should continue to live on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting-Section 21( l)(h), section 157(1) and 240B, scope of.
One Smt. Ram Kali, widow of Tikam Singh, was the land.holder of the
agricultural lands in dispute situated in villages Agaota and Khaiya Khera in
District Bulandshahr (U.P.). On June 14, 1945 Smt. Ram Kali, who was a
Sirdar and a "disabled person" falling within section 157(1) of the U.P. Zamin~
dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, executed a registered deed of lease
for a period of five years in favour of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh (the pre-
decessors-in-title of the respondents) but before the expiry of the period of five
years she died in August, 1945 and Dan Sahai, who was also "disabled person"
within the ineaning of section 157(1) of the Act, (her husband's real brother
and predecessors-in-title of the appellants) inherited her interest. After the
expiry of the period of registered lease Uttam Singh and Murli Singh continued
to hold the lands as tenants from year to year under Dan Sahai.
In consolidation proceedings a question arose, whether Uttam Singh and
Murli Singh, who were lessees (adhivasio;) under Smt. Ram Kali and I>an Sahai
acquired the status of Sirdars, being entitled to be treated so under section 240B
of the Act or they remained Asamis of the plots in dispute. The Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court, relying on the earlier view taken by its Full Bench
in Srnt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji and others, (1970) A.L.J. 476, decided the appeals
in favour of the respondents by holding that they were not Asamis but had
become,Sirdars. Hence the appeals by certificate by successors-in-title of Ram
Kali and Dan Sahai.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On true construction of section 21(1)(h) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act the benefit thereof would be available to the
land-holder on the date of vesting, if the same land-holder or his predecessor
existing on the material dates was a person or persons belonging to one or more
clauses mentioned in section 157(1) of the Act. (378 C-D]
Since, in the instant case, which falls under sub·clause (a) of clause (h) on
the date of actual letting Smt. Ram Kali was a "disabled person" and since on
the next material date, namely, April 9, 1946 Dan Sahai (successof-in·interest of
Smt. Ram Kali) was also a disabled person, the land-holder on the date of
vesting who incidentally happened to be Dan Sahai would be entitled to the
benefit of section 21(l)(h) and the respondents (successors of Uttam Singh and
!
•
-
•
"'
\.
RICHPAL V. DESHRAJ
369
Murli Singh) would remain Asamis and cannot be said to have become Sirdars
A
within the meaning of section 240B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950. [378 E·F]
2. Section 21(1)(h) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 provides that every person occupying or holding land in any one of
the capacities mentioned in clause (h) on the date immediately preceding 1-7-1952
shall be deemed to be an Asami thereof notwithstanding anything contained
in the Act, if the land-holder or if there are more than one all of them were
"disabled persons" within the meaning of section 157(1) both on the date of
letting as well as on April 9, 1946 where the letting has taken place prior to
April 9, 1946 or were disabled persons on the date of letting if the letting has
occurred after April 9, 1946. [373 A-Bl
3:1. It is true that clause (h) contains the phrase "where the land-holder
or if there are more than one land-holder all of them were ·person or persons
belonging" to any one or more than one of the clauses mentioned in section
157(1) of the Act. Under section 3(26) of the Act, the definition of "land·
holder" as given in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 has been adopted since the
expression is not defined in the Act. The expression ''land-holder" who obvi·
ously is a possessor of interest in land under section 3(11) of the U.P. Tenancy
Act, 1939 means a person to whom rent is payable, and under section 3(1), ibid.
by legal fiction it shall include his predecessor-in-interExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.