Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MUSTAQ ALI KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDAT
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 708 JT 1995 (8) 602
1995 SCALE (6)769
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal speaks of several events that have taken
place during the pendency of the litigation. About 40.99
acres comprising of Plot Nos.63, 66, 96, 34, 53, 37 & 102
situated in Village Lakhimpur, Pargana Suar, in former
Rampur State are the subject matter of this appeal. It is
the claim of the appellant that his son is disabled Sirdar.
Consequently, he has sub-leased the properties to
respondents 3 to 10. On his demise on October 21, 1954, the
appellant - his father succeeded to the estate. He also is a
disabled person. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ’the Act’) was brought into
force in the State of Rampur with effect from January 26,
1956. The respondents claimed the status as Adhivasis as
they were cultivating the land and have Bhumiswami rights.
The appellant claimed the Asami right. The Assistant
Settlement Officer by his proceedings dated September 30,
1963 negatived the claims of the appellant and held that the
respondents became Adivasis under the Act. On appeal, the
Assistant Settlement Officer held that the appellant is a
disabled person and that, therefore, he became the asami. On
revision, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) while holding
that the appellant is a disabled person following the
Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Maya v. Raja
Dulaji & Ors. [(1970) ALJ 476] held that the appellant is
not entitled to the status as a disabled person. When the
matter was carried in writ petition, the High Court
following the Full Bench judgment in Maya’s case upheld the
order of the Deputy Consolidation Officer by his order in
Writ Petition No.627/71 dated August 11, 1971. Leave has
been granted by this Court. This appeal has come up for
hearing.
So far as the legal position is concerned, it is now
settled by the decision of this Court in Richpal v. Desh Raj
reported in [(1982) 1 SCR 368]. At page 378, it is held that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Shrimati Ram Kali was a disabled person on April 9, 1946,
Dan Sahai (successor in-interest of Smt. Ram Kali) was also
a disabled person, the land-holder on the date of vesting,
who incidentally happened to be Dan Sahai, would be entitled
to the benefit of s.21(10(h) and the respondents (successor
of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh) would remain Asamis and
cannot be said to have become Sirdars. It is also not in
dispute that a later Bench of five Judges of the Allahabad
High Court in Dwarika Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation
[(1981) ALJ 484 ] had also taken the same view which was
noted by this Court and approved of the correctness thereof.
It would thus be seen that a disabled person and a
successor-in-interest who is also disabled is also Asami
and, therefore, he is Sirdar.
The question is whether this is a fit case for our
interference under Art.136 of the Constitution. It is not in
dispute that the respondents have been in possession and
enjoyment for over 45 years and claiming the status to be as
Adivasis and thus entitled to claim Bhumidar rights under
the Act. They are all small holders and they have been in
possession and enjoyment and cultivating the land for their
livelihood. Considered from this perspective, equity would
be worked out. Accordingly, we direct the Dy. Director
(Consolidation) to determine the prevailing market rate of
the lands as on February 26, 1970, the date on which the
Consolidation Officer has upheld the claim of the
respondents as Adivasis. The respondents are directed to pay
half of the market value to the appellant and on payment
declare the respondents as Bhumidars and action accordingly
be taken.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.