SRI RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. GOKUL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants from a decree passed by our brother S.D. Singh directing the respondents to be restored to possession over the land in dispute, plot No. 142B.

(2.) In the records of 1344F, the appellants were recorded as tenants-in-chief, and the respondents as their sub-tenants, of the land in dispute. The appellants applied in 1944 for correction of the entry alleging that they had not sublet the land to the respondents. On 19-6-1944 corresponding to 1351 Rabi the revenue Court ordered the names of the respondents to be deleted from the records on the ground that they were not sub-tenants and were also not in possession. 1351F, came to an end within a few days of the order being passed. It should have been given effect to when the papers of 1352F, were prepared, but it was not given effect to and in flagrant violation of it the patwari made the same entries in the records of the 1352 F, as in the records of 1351F. He went on repeating the entries in the records of the succeeding years including 1356F. The Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force on 1-7-1952. It appears that before this date there were some proceedings in the Magistrate's Court under Sec. 145, Crimial P.C., in the course of which the land in dispute was attached. The proceedings terminated in favour of the appellants and possession of the land was ordered to be delivered to them. The Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force on 1-7-1952 i.e., the first day of 1360F Sec. 20(b) (i) provides that every person who was recorded as occupant of any land in the Khasra or khatauni of 1356F, prepared under Secs. 28 and 33 respectively of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, will become an adhivasi. There are four Explanations to this provision and we are concerned with Explanations II and III which read as follows:-

(3.) It has been held by this Court that what is required under Sec. 20(b) (i) is simply an entry of occupation in a record of 1356F, and that the entry is not required to be correct and the person who was recorded as occupant is not required to prove that he was actually in occupation in 1356F. The recorded person would get adhivasi rights regardless of whether he was in occupation or not and whether the entry recording him to be an occupant was correct or not. See Bhal Singh Vs. Bhop, 1963 A.L.J. 288 and Lala Nanak Chand Vs. The Board of Revenue, 1955 A.L.J. 408 . The Legislature when enacting Sec. 20(b) (i) might have intended to ban an enquiry into the correctness of the entry, but it does not follow that it also intended to ban an enquiry into the authority for making an entry. An enquiry into the correctness of an entry is distinct from an enquiry into the authority for making an entry and a ban on making an enquiry into the correctness of an entry does not involve a ban on an enquiry into the authority behind an entry. The Legislature undoubtedly contemplated that the entry referred to in Sec. 20(b) (i) must be an entry made in accordance with the rules by a duly authorised person. Some indication of this is given by the words "prepared under Secs. 28 and 33 respectively of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901"; it is not enough that a person is recorded as in occupation in a record; the energy of occupation must have been made in accordance with the rules relating to preparation of the record. It follows that the entry must have been made in accordance with the rules relating to the making of entries in the particular record. The question of an entry in a record of 1356F, would arise more than three years after and in this period of three years there were many opportunities for forged and unauthorised entries being made in the records of 1356Fasli. The Legislature went quite far in laying down that an entry made in a record of 1356F, would suffice for conferment of adhivasi rights even if it was incorrect, but certainly did not intend to go farther and lay down that it sufficed even if it was forged or made by an absolute unauthorised person. There could be a reason for its giving effect to an entry even if it was incorrect but there could not be any reason for its giving effect to it if it was forged or made by an unauthorised person. Therefore, forged entries or entries made by unauthorised persons could not be said to be entries of occupation within the meaning of Sec. 20(b) (i). An entry-made by a patwari in the records of 1356F, in flagrant contravention of an order passed by a competent authority cannot be distinguished from an entry made by an unauthorised person or a forged entry and it must be held that the Legislature did not contemplate an entry made in a record of 1356F, in flagrant violation of an order of a competent authority to be an entry made in a record prepared under Secs. 28 and 33 of the Land Revenue Act. In other words, no person can claim a benefit on the basis of such an entry.