Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a dispute over approximately 40.99 acres of agricultural land comprising Plot Nos. 63, 66, 96, 34, 53, 37 and 102 situated in Village Lakhimpur, Pargana Suar, in the former Rampur State. The litigation concerned competing claims to land rights under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appellant claimed Asami rights as a disabled person succeeding his disabled son, who had allegedly sub-leased the land to respondents 3 to 10. The respondents claimed the status of Adhivasis and asserted Bhumiswami rights as cultivators in possession. The Assistant Settlement Officer by order dated 30 September 1963 negatived the appellant's claim and held that the respondents became Adivasis under the Act. On appeal, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the appellant was a disabled person and therefore became an Asami. In revision, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) denied the appellant's claim, relying on the Allahabad High Court decision in Smt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji. The High Court upheld the revision in Writ Petition No.627/71 dated 11 August 1971, following the Full Bench judgment in Maya's case. Leave was granted by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the legal position was settled by Richpal v. Desh Raj, which held that a disabled landholder and his disabled successor-in-interest are entitled to the benefit of Section 21(1)(h) and remain Asamis/Sirdars, while the cultivating respondents remain Asamis and cannot become Sirdars. A later Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dwarika Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation had taken the same view and was approved by the Supreme Court. Thus, the legal position favoured the appellant. However, the Court observed that the respondents had been in possession and enjoyment of the land for over 45 years, were small holders, and cultivated the land for their livelihood. Exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court worked out equity by directing the Deputy Director (Consolidation) to determine the prevailing market rate of the lands as on 26 February 1970, the date on which the Consolidation Officer had upheld the respondents' claim as Adivasis. The respondents were directed to pay half of the market value to the appellant, and upon such payment, they would be declared Bhumidars and necessary action taken. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Reforms - Asami and Bhumidar Rights - Disabled Landholder and Successor - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 21(1)(h) - The dispute concerned the status of a disabled landholder and his disabled successor as Asami or Sirdar, with cultivating respondents claiming Adhivasi/Bhumidar rights. The Court noted settled law from Richpal v. Desh Raj that a disabled person and his disabled successor-in-interest are entitled to the benefit of Section 21(1)(h) and remain Asamis/Sirdars, while the cultivating respondents remain Asamis and cannot become Sirdars. Held that the legal position favored the appellant, but equitable considerations led to a different relief. (Paras 1-4) B) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The Court considered whether interference was warranted given 45 years of possession by small holder respondents. The Court held that Article 136 jurisdiction could be exercised to work out equity, directing the Deputy Director (Consolidation) to determine the prevailing market rate of the lands as on 26-02-1970 and directing the respondents to pay half of the market value to the appellant, after which the respondents would be declared Bhumidars. Held that equitable relief was appropriate despite the legal position favoring the appellant. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a disabled person and his disabled successor-in-interest are entitled to Asami/Sirdar rights under Section 21(1)(h) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution when respondents have been in possession for over 45 years and are small holders.
Final Decision
The appeal was disposed of with the following directions: Deputy Director (Consolidation) to determine prevailing market rate of lands as on February 26, 1970; respondents to pay half of market value to appellant; upon payment respondents to be declared Bhumidars and necessary action taken. No costs.
Law Points
- A disabled landholder and his disabled successor-in-interest are entitled to benefit of Section 21(1)(h) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- 1950 and remain Asamis/Sirdars
- tenants in possession remain Asamis and cannot become Sirdars
- Supreme Court can exercise Article 136 jurisdiction to work out equity by directing payment of half market value to landlord and declaring tenants as Bhumidars.
