Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 13 July 1965, dismissing Special Appeal No. 314 of 1965. The dispute pertained to agricultural plots No. 573 and 1039 in village Hathawra, Pargana and Tehsil Saidpur, District Ghazipur. The appellants, sons of Ram Dhari, claimed sub-tenancy under Math Sri Chand, while the respondents claimed possession and adhivasi/sirdari rights. Earlier litigation and consolidation proceedings resulted in conflicting revenue entries. The High Court had quashed consolidation authorities' orders that expunged the respondents' names and entered the appellants' names, holding that an entry in favour of the respondents' father, Deep Chand, though motivated by hostility, was made by the Patwari in discharge of duties and therefore not fictitious, thereby conferring adhivasi rights under Section 20(b)(i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Supreme Court examined whether such an entry could be treated as genuine. It noted that Ram Dhari filed a suit in 1953 and obtained a decree on 21 December 1955, which was upheld on appeal on 21 July 1958. The respondents' second appeal was stayed due to consolidation proceedings. Under Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the respondents were recorded as sirdars expunging Ram Dhari's name. The appellants' objections under Section 12 were dismissed on 8 May 1960, but later the Settlement Officer allowed the appeal on 22 June 1963, directing the respondents' names to be expunged and the appellants' names entered. The Deputy Director dismissed the respondents' revision on 7 September 1963. The High Court in a writ petition quashed these orders. The Court referred to Sonawati v. Sri Ram, where a surreptitious entry was held to disentitle adhivasi rights. It discussed the relevant provisions: Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act confers adhivasi rights on persons whose names are recorded in revenue records; Khasra is a field book under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901; Khatauni is an annual register under Section 32. The U.P. Land Reforms Manual prescribes detailed inquiry. An entry under Section 20(b)(i) must be an entry under provisions of law; incorrect entries introduced by dubious methods are useless. The High Court's reasoning that an entry by a Patwari in discharge of duties cannot be fictitious was erroneous; a fictitious entry is one not genuine, unreal. Here the entry was introduced by the Patwari by dubious methods, motivated by hostility, and the Patwari had been punished in 1947. Such entry is mendacious and cannot confer rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the orders of the Settlement Officer dated 22 June 1963 and the Deputy Director dated 7 September 1963.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Fictitious Entry in Khasra and Khatauni - Adhivasi Rights under Section 20(b)(i) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - A fictitious entry is one which is not genuine and unreal; such entry cannot confer adhivasi rights even if made by Patwari in purported discharge of duties - The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the entry as irreproachable; an entry introduced by Patwari by dubious methods and motivated by hostility was mendacious and could not create rights - Held that the High Court order must be set aside (Paras not mentioned in source) B) Evidence - Revenue Records - Presumption of Correctness - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Sections 28, 32, 33 - Entries in Khasra and Khatauni prepared under statutory provisions are meant to record possession and tenures after proper investigation; however, incorrect entries lacking lawful basis are useless - The Court referred to Sonawati v. Sri Ram where surreptitious entry disentitled adhivasi rights; here Patwari had been punished for complaints, indicating dubious methods - Held that entry under Section 20(b)(i) must be an entry under provisions of law (Paras not mentioned in source) C) Consolidation of Holdings - Objection and Appeal - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Sections 8, 12, 20, 48 - Findings of Settlement Officer and Deputy Director that respondents' father's entry was fictitious should have been respected; High Court could not substitute its view that entry by Patwari in discharge of duties cannot be fictitious - The Court set aside High Court judgment and restored consolidation orders - Held that order of High Court is erroneous and appeal allowed (Paras not mentioned in source)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revenue entry in Khasra/Khatauni made by a Patwari in discharge of public duties but motivated by hostility or ill-will can be considered fictitious and thus disentitle a person from adhivasi rights under Section 20(b)(i) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; and whether the High Court erred in treating such entry as irreproachable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7 September 1963 and the Settlement Officer dated 22 June 1963 restored; entry in favour of respondents' father held fictitious and mendacious, conferring no adhivasi rights.
Law Points
- A fictitious entry in Khasra/Khatauni is not genuine and cannot confer adhivasi rights under Section 20(b)(i) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- 1950
- Entry under Section 20(b)(i) must be an entry under provisions of law
- Incorrect entry introduced by Patwari through dubious methods is mendacious and without lawful basis
- High Court cannot treat an entry as irreproachable merely because made by Patwari in discharge of duties
- Surreptitious entry disentitles claim as held in Sonawati v. Sri Ram.
