BABU NOORUL HASAN KHAN Vs. RAM PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court disposing of ten connected civil revisions. Noorul Hasan Khan and others were the Zamindars of the village in which certain lands were given in Theka to Bhagwati Singh, Ram Prasad Singh and others on the 6th of March, 1948. The Zamindari vested under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act, on the 30th of June, 1952. Disputes arose between the ex-Zamindars and the ex-Thekedars during the pendency of the proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. When entries in the list of tenancy holders were published under Section 11 of the Consolidation of the Holdings Act relating to the lands in dispute consisting of several plots, objections were filed by both the parties. Noorul Hasan Khan and others claimed that the plots in dispute being their exclusive Sir and Khudkasht would be deemed to have been settled with them by the State on the abolition of the Zamindari and their names should be recorded as bhumidars thereof. On the other hand Bhagwati Singh and others claimed that they had become the Sirdars of the plots in dispute and they resisted the claim of the ex-Zamindars. The Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Civil Judge of Azamgarh in accordance with Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Civil Judge sent the matter for decision to an Arbitrator appointed under the Act as the dispute gave rise to the question of title, Shri Kailash Chandra, an Assistant Collector, was appointed as an Arbitrator. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him he rejected the claim of ex-Zamindars and decided the matter in favour of the ex-Thekedars. Bhagwati Singh and others were held to be the Sirdars of the plots in question. Noorul Hasan and others filed objections to the Award before the Civil Judge. He allowed the objections on the ground that the illegality of the Award was apparent on the face of it inasmuch as the Arbitrator did not apply the correct law in determining the rights of the parties. He set aside the Award and remitted it back to the arbitrator for reconsideration in the light of his judgment.

(2.) Appeals were taken to the learned Additional District Judge who by order dated 8-12-1962 disagreed with the learned Civil Judge on the main question but affirmed his order of remand on the ground that in the Award many questions were left undetermined. Both sides filed separate revisions before the High Court. The High Court has allowed the revisions of the ex-Thekedars and dismissed those of the ex-Zamindars. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The only point which was argued and agitated before us is whether Bhagwati Singh and others have been rightly held to be the Sirdars of the plots and question or whether the ex-landlords had become the bhumidars. The determination of this question depends upon a correct appreciation of the provisions of law contained in Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. We shall read the relevant portions of the two sections. They are as follows:-