UDAI DEAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original appellant Udai and one Pargash (the pre decessor-in-interest. of the fifth respondent herein) were recorded as Sirdars over Khata Nos. 203 and 217 in village Murmaicha, Pargana Bhidohi, Talisil Gyanpur, District Varanasi. The fourth respondent Smt.Raghunathi filed an objection, under S. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, challenging the correctness of the entries made in favour of Udai and Pargash. She claimed that she had been in possession of the said plots and that Udai and Pargash had no connection therewith. The case of Udai and Pargash, on the other hand, was that the plots in question have been let out to them by the objector, that they had been recorded as sub tenants in the yer 1357 Fasli and, as such, they had acquired Sirdari rights. The Consolidation Officer upheld the claim of Smt. Raghunathi in respect of khata No. 203 but rejected it in respect of khata No. 217.

(2.) The Settlement Officer, by his order dated 18-1-68, allowed the appeal of Udai but dismissed the appeal of Smt. Raghunathi in respect of khata No. 217 with the result that both Udai and Shri Ram (son of Pargash) were held Sirdars of the respective khatas:The revision petition of Smt. Raghunathi before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was unsuccessful and thereupon she filed a writ petition being CMW No. 6844 of 1972 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the orders of the Consolidation Authorities.

(3.) Before the High Court, the controversy between the parties was within a very narrow compass. It was common ground that Udai and Pargash had been recorded as "snikmi" tenants in 1357 Fasli and that this was tantamount to their being sub-tenants in respect of the plots in question. The short point that was urged before the High Court was that a sub-tenant in possession of the lands could not claim rights under S. 20(b)(i) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). It is this contention that has been accepted by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, who, consequently, allowed the writ petition and quashed the rights conferred on Udai and Pargash. This has led to the present appeal.