Jagdamba Prasad Misra v. Rafiuddin — 1966 DIGILAW 371 (ALL)

JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - In this special appeal which is directed against the judgment of R.N. Sharma, J. dated January 25, 1965 the following two submissions have been made before us: 1. That the finding with regard to possession of the Respondents over the plots in dispute, by the consolidation authorities not being based on evidence was liable to be quashed and the learned single judge committed an error of law in not doing so. 2. That the name of the Appellant having been recorded as Sirdar in the compensation statement prepared u/s 240-D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) and no objection having been filed the same became final u/s 240-J of the UP ZA and LR Act. The consolidation authorities were therefore precluded from going into that question and holding that not the Appellant but the Respondent was the Sirdar of the land in dispute. No other submission has been made before us. We proceed to consider the submissions seriatim. (I) No ground has been taken in the memorandum of appeal that the finding that the Respondents are in possession over the land in dispute is not based on evidence. It does not also appear from the judgment of the learned single Judge that the point that the findings are based on (sic) evidence was raised before him. In the writ petition also no point with regard to the finding not being based on evidence was taken. It does not also appear to have been taken before the Deputy Director (Consolidation). That being the position, we have not allowed the learned Counsel to urge this point before us. The question would require examination of evidence which this Court does not normally do in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in an appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judged in a writ petition. We, therefore, overrule the first submission of the learned Counsel. (II). Before we comb to deal with the second submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, we would like to point out that Section 240-J occurs in Chapter IX-A which was introduced in the principal Act by U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 (U.P. Act 20 of 1954). This Chapter is headed as "Conferment of sirdari rights on adhivasi" and contains 14 sections. This Chapter is headed as "Conferment of sirdari rights on adhivasi" and contains 14 sections. The provisions contained in these sections show that they deal with the acquisition of rights, title and interest of landholder in the land held by adhivasis and for payment of compensation to him in respect of it. Whereas Chapter II of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act deals with the acquisition of the proprietary rights of an intermediary or a landlord, Chapter III of the Act deals with the payment of compensation to him in respect of such rights. Chapter IX-A of the Act deals with acquisition of rights of an intermediary or a landlord in respect of the lard owned by him and occupied by adhivasis and for payment of compensation to him in respect of acquisition of his rights in such land. Section 240-A with which Chapter IX-A opens, provides for the acquisition of rights, title and interest of the landholder in the land held by an adhivasi. Section 240-B provides for the consequences that ensue on acquisition of rights, title and interests of a landholder u/s 240-A of the Act. Section 240-C provides that the landholder shall receive compensation in respect of acquisition of his rights, title or interest in the land occupied by adhivasis. Section 240-D provides for the preparation of a compensation statement. Section 240-E enjoins as to in what manner compensation shall be paid to the landholder. Section 240-F provides for publication of the compensation statement prepared u/s 240-D. Section 240-G provides for filing of objections. Section 240-H provides for disposal of objections. Section 240-HH provides that if a question of title arises in respect of land occupied by an adhivasi in areas under consolidation operation the matter should be referred to the Arbitrator. Section 240-I provides for appeal to the Collector. Section 240-J provides for the publication of the statement. Section 240-K provides for the payment of compensation. Section 240-L provides that the provisions of Ch. IX-A shall not apply to evacuee property and Section 240-M confers on the State Government the power to make rules. These provisions clearly show that the purpose of the provisions contained in Chapter IX-A is 10 provide for the acquisition of the rights, title and interest of a landholder in his plots occupied by adhivasis and for payment of compensation to him. These provisions clearly show that the purpose of the provisions contained in Chapter IX-A is 10 provide for the acquisition of the rights, title and interest of a landholder in his plots occupied by adhivasis and for payment of compensation to him. That Chapter does not at all deal with the decision of dispute between persons claiming to be an "Adhivasi" or "Sirdar" of a plot of land. Sec. 240-D reads as follows: 240-D. Compensation Statement. For purposes of assessment and payment of compensation for acquisition of rights, title and interest of the landholder in the land referred to in Section 240-A the Compensation Officer shall prepare a compensation statement showing: (a) The name or names of the landholder; (b) Where the land referred to in Section 240-A was, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting (i) recorded as sir, khudhasht or fixed rate tenancy of the landholder, or (ii) included in the holding of a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in Clause (d) of Section 18, or (iii) included in the holding of a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in Section 19 The rent computed at hereditary rates applicable on the said date; (c) Where the land referred to in Section 240-A was land other than land mentioned in Clause (b), the rent payable for such land by the tenant thereof on the said date; and (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (Italicised by us) It is clear from this provision that the only purpose for which a compensation statement is prepared is to assess and pay to the intermediary or the landlord compensation for the acquisition of his land occupied by an "Adhivasi" or a 'Sirdar". Section 240-F reads: 240-F. Preliminary publication of statement. The compensation Statement prepared u/s 240-D shall be published in the manner prescribed and a copy thereof shall also be sent to the land holder concerned. It would be noticed that no copy is to be sent to any person other than the landlord, not even to one who may claim to be "Adhivasi" or "Sirdar" of the la ad acquired. This provision also shows that the purpose of the compensation statement is to assess and pay compensation to the intermediary or the landholder. It would be noticed that no copy is to be sent to any person other than the landlord, not even to one who may claim to be "Adhivasi" or "Sirdar" of the la ad acquired. This provision also shows that the purpose of the compensation statement is to assess and pay compensation to the intermediary or the landholder. If the idea was that compensation statement would record the rights or the status of persons claiming to be adhivasis or sirdars of the land acquired, a copy of this compensation statement would also be required to be sent to them which admittedly is not provided for. Section 240-G reads: 240-G. Filing of objections. Any person interested or the State Government may in the manner prescribed file before the Compensation Officer an objection upon such statement within the period of one month from the date of its oublication. (Italicised by us) The word "person interested" means "person interested in receiving the compensation". There is no provision for the filing of objections by persons claiming to be adhivasis or sirdars of the, land acquired. 3. From this provision also it follows that compensation statement is prepared only for the purpose of paying compensation to the landlord. Section 240-H deals with the disposal of objections. It reads: 240-H. Disposal of objections. (1) Except as provided in Sub-section (2), the Compensation Officer shall after hearing the parties, if necessary, on the objections filed u/s 240-G dispose of the objection in the manner prescribed. (2) Where the objection filed under Sub-section (1)-- (a) is that the land is not land referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 240-A, the Compensation Officer shall frame an issue to that effect and refer it for disposal to the Court which would have jurisdiction to decide a suit u/s 229-B read with Section 234-A in respect of the land and thereupon all the provisions relating to the hearing and disposal of such suits shall apply to the reference as if it were suit. (b) involves a question of title and such question has not already been determined by a competent Court, except in cases in which Section 240-H applies, refer the question for determination to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Explanation : Whether a person is or is not an adhivasi shall not be deemed to raise a question of title within the meaning of this clause. Explanation : Whether a person is or is not an adhivasi shall not be deemed to raise a question of title within the meaning of this clause. (3) That District Judge shall determine the question referred to him under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) in the manner prescribed and his decision thereon shall be final. (Italicised by us) An analysis of this provision' reveals that only two kinds of objections are contemplated i.e. (I) That the land is not one referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 230-A that is to say, the land is not one occupied by an adhivasi. (II) That not the person whose name is shown in the compensation statement, but the objector in the landlord and for that reason entitled to receive compensation. In our opinion, the expression "involves a question of title" occurring in Clause (b) means, when the question is raised as to who is entitled to receive compensation. The Explanation makes it abundantly clear that whether or not a person is an adhivasi shall not be deemed to raise a question of title. From this it follows that whether or not a person is an adhivasi shall not be determined by the District Judge. In this chapter there is no provision under which the question as to who is the adhivasi or the sirdar of the land in question is to be determined. As would appear from the scheme of the Chapter, as disclosed by its various pro visions, the two parties to the proceedings contemplated by this chapter are (i) the State who acquires the plots occupied by adhivasis and (ii) the landlord or the person who owns the plots and is thus entitled to receive compensation. There is no third party contemplated. It is true that Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) provides that if the objection is that the land is not occupied by an adhivasi, an issue to that effect be framed and referred by the Compensation Officer to the Court which has jurisdiction to decide a suit u/s 229-B read with Section 234-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It is true that Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) provides that if the objection is that the land is not occupied by an adhivasi, an issue to that effect be framed and referred by the Compensation Officer to the Court which has jurisdiction to decide a suit u/s 229-B read with Section 234-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Section 229-B reads: 229-B. Suit by an Asami for declaration of rights : (1) Any person claiming to be an asami whether exclusively or jointly with any other person may sue the landholder: (a) for a declaration I that he is an asami of the holding, or (b) for a declaration of his share therein. (2) In any suit under Sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the land-holder shall be impleaded as Defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-Sees. (I) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a parson claiming to be a bhumidhar or sirdar, as the case may be with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government and Gaon Samaj" are substituted therein. Sec 234-A reads: 234-A. Application of Section 212-B, 212-C and 229-B to 229-D in the case of an adhivasi: The provisions of Section 212-B, 212-C and 229-B to 229-D shall apply to an adhivasi as if he were "an asami". (Italicised by us) 4. In our judgment, Section 240-H(2a) only provides for the framing of an issue to the effect as to whether or not the land is one occupied by an adhivasi and refer it to the court having jurisdiction to decide a suit filed u/s 229-B read with Section 234-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The words where the objection filed under Sub-section (1) is that the land is not land referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 240-A, the Compensation Officer shall frame an issue to that effect mean that the issue shall not be as to who is the adhivasi, if any, of the land, but whether there is any adhivasi occupying the land. This is clear from the use of the words "to that effect." This again, would show that the question as to which particular person is or persons are adhivasi or adhivasis of the land in suit or are sirdar or sirdars of it is not to be decided u/s 240-H of the Act. This is clear from the use of the words "to that effect." This again, would show that the question as to which particular person is or persons are adhivasi or adhivasis of the land in suit or are sirdar or sirdars of it is not to be decided u/s 240-H of the Act. We have already pointed out that there is also no other provision under which it can be decided. The Explanation makes it clear that the question whether a person is or is not an adhivasi shall not be deemed to raise a question of title with the result that that question cannot be adjudicated upon u/s 240-H or any other provision. Section 240-1 provides for appeal to the Collector and reads: 240-I Appeal to the Collector. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, any person aggrieved by the order of the Compensation Officer deciding the objection in so far as it relates to the amount of compensation Under Secction 240-H may appeal to the Collector, who shall decide the appeal in the manner prescried and the decision of the Collector shall be final. It would be noticed that the appeal u/s 240-1 is only in respect of the amount of the compensation and not in respect of the entries relating to adhivasi or sirdari rights. If the idea was that any incidental entry in the compensation statement describing a person as a sirdar or an adhivasi also forms an integral part of the compensation statement, appeal would have been provided against that also which admittedly is not provided by Section 240-1 of the Act. Section 240-J reads: 240-J. Final publication of the statement. (1) Where no objection has been filed in regard to the compensation statement published in pursuance of Section 240-F, or where such objections are filed and have been finally disposed of, the statement shall where necessary be amended, altered or modified. The Compensation Officer shall sign the statement and affix his seal thereto. (2) The statement so signed and sealed shall become final. (3) A copy of the final statement shall be supplied free of charge to the landholder concerned. (Italicised by us) The compensation statement signed and sealed becomes final only in respect of matters which relate to compensation and not in respect of ancillary matters. (2) The statement so signed and sealed shall become final. (3) A copy of the final statement shall be supplied free of charge to the landholder concerned. (Italicised by us) The compensation statement signed and sealed becomes final only in respect of matters which relate to compensation and not in respect of ancillary matters. The words "where no objection has been filed in regard to the compensation statement" clearly show that where no objection has been filed either with regard to the amount of the compensation or with regard to the right of the person shown as landholder to receive compensation, the compensation statement shall become final. If, however, an objection has been made and allowed in whole or part then the amended or modified compensation statement shall become final. 5. Section 240-K(2) provides that compensation shall be paid to the landholder whose name is entered in the final compensation statement and where the landholder dies before it is paid to him, it shall be paid to his legal representatives. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that there is no provision in Chapter IX-A under which an adjudication in respect of adhivasi or sirdar can be made. Chapter IX-A only deals with the acquisition of the rights of an intermediary or a landholder in respect of his land occupied by adhivasis and for payment of compensation to him. It also declares the law that any person, who is an adhivasi of such land, shall become sirdar thereof, but the machinery for the determination of the question whether a particular person is or is not an adhivasi and therefore is or is not a sirdar, is not contained in Chapter IX-A of the Act, but is contained, as pointed out earlier, in Section 229-B and 234-A of the Act. We would also like to point out that there is nothing in Section 240-D which requires that in a compensation statement an entry giving the names of the various persons who are adhivasis and have consequently become sirdars should be made. If some names are, in fact entered it is only for the ancillary purpose of showing that it is a land occupied by Adhivasis. 7. Mr. Misra placed reliance upon Clause (d) of Section 240-D of the Act which reads: Such other particulars as may be prescribed. If some names are, in fact entered it is only for the ancillary purpose of showing that it is a land occupied by Adhivasis. 7. Mr. Misra placed reliance upon Clause (d) of Section 240-D of the Act which reads: Such other particulars as may be prescribed. He has drawn our attention to Rule 193-B of the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 193-B of the Rules framed under the Act reads: As soon as the notification u/s 240-A has been published, the following statements shall be prepared in : (i) Z.A. Form 101 in respect of lands held by adhivasis other than evacuee land. Part I of the statement shall contain particulars in respect of whole khatas no part of which is held by adhivasis who hold evacuee land. Part II of the statement shall contain particulars of khatas part only of which is so held. In the first place, this rule does not say that the names of adhivasis are to be mentioned and in case of a dispute, the question shall be decided and the name of one who succeeds shall be entered. The rule only provides that Z.A. Form 101 shall be prepared in respect of the land held by adhivasis. It is the land which is material and not the name of the adhivasi. Compensation is to be paid for the acquisition of the land and consequently, the land occupied by the adhivasis has necessarily to be mentioned in the compensation statement, but there is nothing in Rule 193-B(i) which indicates that apart from the land the names of the adhivas s are also required to be mentioned. 8. That being the law, we do not see how it can be seriously urged that if a name is entered as adhivasi in the compensation statement, the entry becomes sacrosanct and cannot be challenged. 8. That being the law, we do not see how it can be seriously urged that if a name is entered as adhivasi in the compensation statement, the entry becomes sacrosanct and cannot be challenged. If the law does not require the name of the alleged adhivasi to be mentioned, if the law does not permit an objection being made by a rival claimant, if the law does not provide a machinery for the adjudication of the disputes between rival claimants each claiming to be an adhivasi or a sirdar, we do not see how can any finality be attached to the entry in the compensation statement of a particular name shown as adhivasi in respect of a plot of land, made with the sole object of showing that the land is one occupied by an adhivasi. 9. That being our view on the construction of Section 240-J of the Act, we hold that the entry of the name of the Appellant as adhivasi or sirdar in the compensation statement was no bar against the consolidation authorities deciding as to whether the Appellant or the Respondent was the adhivasi or sirdar of the plots in dispute. Section 330 or Section 331 of the Act also does not bar the investigation of the question as to who is the adhivasi or the sirdar of the plots in dispute by the revenue courts. Section 330 of the Act reads: Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any entry in or omissipn from a Compensation Assessment Roll or in respect of any order passed under Part I of this Act. This section would not apply, firstly, because consolidation authorities are not civil courts and secondly, because the compensation statements prepared under Chapter IX-A of the Act are not compensation assessment rolls. Compensation Assessment rolls are those prepared under Chapter III of the Act. This section would not apply, firstly, because consolidation authorities are not civil courts and secondly, because the compensation statements prepared under Chapter IX-A of the Act are not compensation assessment rolls. Compensation Assessment rolls are those prepared under Chapter III of the Act. Section 331 of the Act provides that "no court other than a court mentioned n column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 5 thereof." Inasmuch as there is no provision for any application or suit being made under the provisions of Chapter IX-A of the Act, Section 331 of the Act cannot apply to a compensation statement prepared under Chapter IX-A of the Act and for that reason any person, who claims to be an adhivasi or a sirdar, can bring a regular suit in-spite of an entry of a person is sirdar in the compensation statement. 10. Mr. Misra has placed reliance upon the following observations in Langra v. Board of Revenue UP Allahabad 1961 AWR 602 . After the publication of the preliminary statement in which the Petitioner was shown as the sirdar and the Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 as adhivasis the Petitioner did not file any objection in time. The objection he filed being beyond time was rejected by the Compensation Officer himself and his order became final. On this basis when the declaration suit filed by the Petitioner was being considered in second appeal by the Board of Revenue it was contended that the rights of the Petitioner had got extinguished and that he could not, therefore, claim a declaration that he was a sirdar. This observation by the learned Judges is in the nature of obiter dicta. They were not called upon to decide the specific question raised before us, the same being whether the Petitioner-Appellant or the Respondent is the sirdar of the land in dispute. The case being distinguishable, cannot be treated to be a precedent. 11. Mr. Misra also placed reliance upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Brij Raj Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow 1964 ALJ 910. With great respect to Nigam, J., who decided Brij Raj Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division (supra) we are for reasons mentioned in this judgment unable to agree with him. 11. Mr. Misra also placed reliance upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Brij Raj Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow 1964 ALJ 910. With great respect to Nigam, J., who decided Brij Raj Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division (supra) we are for reasons mentioned in this judgment unable to agree with him. Besides, this decision was conisdered by a Bench of this Court in Smt. Basari Wali v. Board of Revenue UP at Allahabad 1966 AWR 401. The learned Judges observed: The learned Counsel, however, contended that a case reported in B.R. Singh v. Commissioner (supra) was a contrary decision. We have gone through that case carefully and found that the learned Judge who decided this case on the ground that the correctness or validity of the proceedings Under ch. IX-A of the UPZA and LR Act had not been challenged either before the Consolidation Officer or in the writ petition. That point was therefore not allowed to be raised. The language of learned Judge is not very apt because a notification u/s 240-A does not relate to individual plots. It is the compensation statament made under the Act which refers to plots. This case is, therefore, not a contrary authority on the question arising in these cases before us. We find some support for the view that we are taking from Smt. Basari Wali v. Board of Revenue UP at Allahabad (supra). 12. For the reasons mentioned above we are in agreement with Sharma, J. that the consolidation authorities acted within jurisdiction in deciding the question whether the Petitioner-Appellant or the Respondent was the 'adhivasi and thereafter the sirdar of the land in dispute, with the result that the second submission of the learned Counsel also fails. 13. The special appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.