AVDHESH SINGH Vs. BIKARMA AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Appeals Nos. 403 and 621 of 1967 which arose out of the same judgment of a learned Single Judge came up before a Division Bench consisting of two of us. The appeals involved a consideration of the nature, extent of and conditions under which the Compensation Statement signed and sealed by the Compensation Officer in accordance with Section 240-J of U. P. Act 1 of 1951 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - assumes finality. Since there was considerable divergence of opinion on these questions in reported and unreported decisions of this Court, the Bench referred the following questions for answer to a larger Bench :-

(2.) IDENTICAL problems arose before one of us in Writ Petition No. 6097 of 1970 and consequently the learned Single Judge hearing it also referred the same questions for consideration by and answers thereof to a large Bench. As a result of the references, these questions came up for consideration before a Full Bench consisting of three Judges. During the hearing of the references some doubts were entertained with regard to the correctness of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Maqbool Raza v. Joint Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow, 1968 All LJ 89 : (AIR 1969 All 26) (FB). It was contended before the Full Bench that the Bench which decided 1968 All LJ 89 : (AIR 1969 All 26) (FB) (supra) was concerned with the effect of the Compensation Statement finalised under Section 240-J on rival claims to Adhivasi rights and not with a case where the land-holder was claiming that the person shown as Adhivasi in the Compensation Statement was really not so and that he (the land-holder) continued to retain his title over the disputed land despite the proceedings under Chapter IX-A as is the case in the two special appeals and the writ petition before us. The Full Bench consequently referred the questions mentioned earlier for consideration by a larger Bench. This is how these cases happen to be before us.

(3.) THE Act as originally enacted provided for abolition of rights of intermediaries and their vesting in the State and simultaneous conferment of rights on the actual tillers of the soil. It created three classes of tenure-holders, viz. (1) Bhumidhars, (2) Sirdars and (3) Asamis. It also under Section 20 of the Act recognised a class of persons having different types of rights who were described as Adhivasis, though they were not tenure-holders and had merely a right to continue in occupation. Subsequently by U. P. Supplementary Act No. XX of 1952 Adhivasi rights were also conferred on persons who were in cultivatory possession of land in 1359 Fasli. It appears that the legislature realised that its objective of securing land to the tillers of the soil had not been fully achieved and consequently with a view to completing the process of providing security of tenure to such persons it enacted U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 1952 (U. P. Act No. XXXI of 1952) which brought about substantial changes in the Act. This Amending Act of 1952 introduced Chapter IX-A in the Act with the scope of which we are concerned in these references. This Chapter contains in all 14 sections and is headed "Conferment of Sirdari rights on Adhivasi."