BADRI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) dated December 31, 1970. The dispute relates to plot No. 140 area 19 biswa 18 Dhur and 144 area 3 bigha 8 biswa 9 Dhur situate in village Kewara, Par-gana Mohammedabad, district Ghazipur. In the basis year the plots mentioned above were entered in the names of Badri, Jag Narnin, Jagar K;.lh, ISrij Narain and Ram Narain It is common ground that plot No. 144 was formerly Sir land of the ancestors of the petitioners and plot No. 140 was their fixed rate tenancy. Brijnath, the respon dent No. 4, filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act claiming himself the Bhumidhar of these plots. The rspondent No. 4 alleged that his father had planted groves on the plots in dispute with the permission of the zamindar, who were the ancestors of the petitioners, hence by virtue of planta tion of the groves, he was a grove holder entitled to the rights under Section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioners contested the objection of the respondent No. 4 as serting that the groves were planted by their ancestor and the res pondent No. 4 had no concern with the plots in dispute.

(2.) THE Consolidation Officer held that registered agreement dated August 7, 1933 executed by the petitioners or their predecessors in favour of Shiva Nath, the father of the respondent No. 4, clearly showed that both the parties were co-grove holders and, therefore, both of them were entitled to be recorded as co-bhumidhars. Both the parties filed two separate appeals. The Settlement Officer (Con solidation) held that the petitioners were the sole Bhumidhar of plot No. 144, and the respondent No. 4 being the grove holder of plot No. 140, was its exclusive Bhumidhar. According to his finding the status of the respondent No. 4 with regard to plot No. 144 was only that of a licensee. Both the parties were again dissatisfied conse quently two revisions were filed against the aforesaid judgment. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 4 holding that he was not merely a licensee of plot No. 144 but its asami u|s. 21 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The revision filed by the petitioners in respect of plot No. 140 was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the present petition has been filed. I will "first take up the case of plot No. 140. As stated above, it is a common case of both the parties that the said plot was the Sir of the ancestors of the petitioners and a lease for planting grove over this plot was granted by them to Shiva Nath, the father of the respondent No. 4. This permission was granted on August 7, 1933, when the Agra Ten ancy Act, 1926 was still in operation. There is further no dispute be tween the parties that a grove was planted over this plot in pursu ance of the above transaction. The first question that needs deter mination is whether the character of the Sir land got extinguished on account of the permission granted by the zamindars. It is note worthy that the permission granted in favour of the father of the res pondent No. 4 was for planting trees. The predecessors of the peti tioner do not get themselves completely divested of the ownership of the plot. The rights given to Shiva Nath was limited in nature, Section 4 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 defines Sir. Section 7 of the said Act contained provision for extinction of Sir rights. There is nothing in this section which may show that the rights of a Sir holder gets extinguished on account of the permission granted to him to plant a grove. Section 196 of this Act defines a grove hol der, which includes a person'.... to whom land has been let or grant ed by a landlord or a permanent tenure holder for the purpose of planting a grove. . . .' Accordingly any person to whom the permission is granted to plant a grove becomes a grove holder. As a grove holder he acquires certain rights conferred upon him by the statute but there is nothing in the Act laying down that the rights of a Sir-hol der gets extinguished due to creation of a grove holder's right on the Sir land.

(3.) ON the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate including land (cultivable or barren) grove land, forest etc. were abolished. But Section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Aboli tion and Land Reforms Act settled certain lands with intermediaries or cultivators as Bhumidhars. The relvant part of Section 10 of the Act is as under: -