RIGHPAL SINGH Vs. DESH RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court raise the following substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by this Court:

(2.) The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may be stated. One Smt. Ram Kali, widow of Tikam Singh, was the landholder of the plots (agricultural land) 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 S. 157 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act") executed a registered deed of lease for a period of 5 years in favour of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh (the predecessor-in-title of the respondents) but before the expiry of the period of 5 years she died in August, 1945 and Dan Sahai (her husband's real brother and predecessor-in-title of the appellants) inherited her interest. Dan Sahai was also a 'disabled person' within the meaning of Section 157 (1) of the Act. It seems that after the expiry of the period of the 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 under Smt. Ram Kali and Dan Sahai, acquired the status of Sirdars or they remained Asamis of the plots in dispute. The case of Dan Sahai was that they were Asamis and not Adhivasis entitled to be treated as Sirdars under S. 240-B of the Act and that depended upon whether as tenants or occupants of the plots in dispute their case fell within the provisions of S. 21 (1) (h) of the Act. The contention of Dan Sahai was that since Smt. Ram Kali was a disabled person on the date of letting and since he who succeeded her was also a disabled person on April 9, 1946, the lease in favour of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh would fall within S. 21 (1) (h) and as such Uttam Singh and Murli Singh shall be deemed to be Asamis. On the other hand the contention on behalf of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh was that the landholder should not only be a disabled person on both the dates mentioned in sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (h) of S. 21 (1) (being the date of letting as also April 9, 1946) but the same landlord should continue to live on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting (which is 1-7-1952 under the Act) and since in the instant case the same landlord who had let out the plots and who was disabled person on the date of letting had not continued to live on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting S. 21 (1) (h) was totally inapplicable and, therefore, they were entitled to be treated as Sirdars. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos.. 424-425 of 1971 accepted the contention raised by counsel on behalf of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh (the respondent's predecessors) relying on the view taken by the Full Bench in Smt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji (1970 All LJ 476) and decided the appeals in their favour by holding that they were not Asamis but had become Sirdars.

(3.) At the outset it may be stated that it was not disputed either in the lower Courts or before us that both Smt. Ram Kali as well as Shri Dan Sahai who succeeded to her interest in the plots after her death were disabled persons under S. 157 (1) of the Act. In fact it was accepted by both the sides that on the date of letting (being 14th June, 1945) Smt. Ram Kali, the then land-holder was a disabled person and on 9th April, 1946 (being the other relevant date under sub-clause (a) of Cl. (h) of S. 21 (1)) Dan Sahai, the then landholder, was a disabled person who continued to be the land holder up to the date of vesting and the question is whether in such a case the occupation of the plots by Uttam Singh and Murli Singh under the lease from both of them would fall within the provisions of Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act.