RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. KAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the judgment debtor. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The decree holder was granted rights in the land by the State Govt. under a deed dated 19 -6 -1957. A plan for the development of village Kichha had been drawn up by the State Govt. & the land in dispute came under the plan, but inasmuch as that plan was not enforced forthwith, the rights were granted to the decree holder from year to year by a deed dt. 19 -6 -1957. The tenure of the decree holder were, however, precarious inasmuch as the decree holder's right could be terminated on 15 day's notice. Further, cls. 6 and 8 respectively of the deed deprived the decree holder from claiming any compensation in respect of improvements made by him and prevented him from subletting the land. The judgment -debtor was in possession of the land and as such the decree -holder filed a suit for ejectment which was decreed on 20th October, 1959. That decree on appeal was reversed but this Court allowed the second appeal preferred by him on 24th of January, 1969. Thereafter the decree holder put his decree into execution but the execution was resisted mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was maintained on behalf of the judgment -debtor that inasmuch as the UP ZA and LR Act had come in force in the area, he had acquired the rights of an Adhivasi u/S. 230A of the Act and as such could not be ejected and, secondly, that the decree holder had no subsisting interest in the land, no execution could be taken out. The objection of the judgment -debtor has been dismissed by both the courts. In the present appeal both these contentions have been revived, and I shall deal with them seriatum. Before advantage can be taken of S. 230A of the Act it must be shown that the decree holder is either a bhumidhar or a sirdar. It is not the case of the appellant that the decree holder is a bhumidhar. It is, however, maintained that the decree holder would become Sirdar u/S. 131(a) sub -cl. (4) of the Act as applied to this area. It would be convenient to point out at this stage that the UP ZA and LR Act did not apply to this area as it was an excluded area u/S. 2 of the Act. This Act was to be applied with certain modifications by virtue of a notification dated 30 -6 -69. It would be useful to quote S. 131 sub -cl. (4) of the Act here as the contention that Sirdari rights accrue to the plaintiff is based upon this section.

(2.) It is now necessary to consider the second contention. It has been seen that the decree holder did not acquire the rights of a Sirdar u/S. 131(a) sub -cl. 4 of the Act, and neither did he become a bhumidhar u/S. 130, but the mere fact that he does not come within either of these two categories would not mean that the rights which he was enjoying under the deed dated 19 -6 -1957 automatically came to an end as soon as the UP ZA and LR Act was enforced in the area. In areas where intermediaries existed the estate vested in the State free from all encumbrances, and it is well settled by decisions of this Court that the result of the vesting was to bring to an end the rights of tenure -holders existing under the UP Tenancy Act and to grant fresh rights under the UP ZA and LR Act. In the present case, however, there has been no vesting, as the area appertaining to the lease was always owned by the State Govt., and as such, the consequences set out u/S. 6 of the UP ZA and LR Act do not come in play in respect of such areas, with the result that the rights of lease holder save such lease holders which become either Bhumidhars or Sirdars are governed by the term of their existing leases. There is nothing in the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act to suggest that the classes of tenures set out u/S. 129 are exhaustive and in case it is not possible to bring a tenure within the ambit of S. 129 the rights enjoyed by such a tenure holder comes to an end by the enforcement of the Act. At one stage it was suggested by the respondent that the decree holder became a Govt. lessee as provided for u/S. 133A of the Act. Considerable controversy arose as to whether the appellant became a Govt. lessee as provided for u/S. 133A of the UP ZA and LR Act and as to whether S. 133A of the Act would be effective in view of the apparent conflict between this Sec. and Ss. 130 and 131 of the Act as applied to this area. It is not necessary to go into this question, as even if the contention of the counsel for the respondent is accepted that S. 133(A) of the Act has been rendered ineffective on account of its inconsistency with Ss. 130 and 131 of the Act, which prevail in view of their being subsequently introduced with modifications, the rights of the decree -holder still continue on the view that I have taken. The result, therefore, is that the rights of the decree holder granted by the deed dated 19 -6 -1957 continue till such time that they are terminated in accordance with its provisions, and as such the decree holder had a right to execute the decree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.