9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e points involved in this appeal are short but in view of the length of litigation a long narration is necessary. 2. On March 10, 1954 Smt. Harbheji as bhumidar filed a suit (No. 38 of 1954) Under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the other party in the court of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Aligarh. The allegation in the suit was that Sukhram Sinh and Laiq Singh were Asamis who were leased the khata va. 1947 from year to year. Smt. Harbheji asked for their ejectment from the khata. The defence of the other side was that the occupants were Adhivasis. The Land Reforms Act was passed in 1951. Under the Act the A. intermediaries were abolished and their rights and title vested in the State from July 1, 1952. The Act was later amended from time to time and we are concerned with one such amendment made by the U.P. Land Reforms Act XX of 1954 which came into force on October 10, 1954. 3. Reverting to the facts, the suit No. 38 of 1954 was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Aligarh on April 20, 1956 and it was held that Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh were not Asamis and therefore not liable to ejectment. On appeal the Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the powers of the Director of Consolidation Uttar Pradesh dismissed the revision petition on September 20, 1963 filed by Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh. The present appeal is from the last decision by special leave. 5. Two points were argued before us, namely, that Smt. Harbheji was not entitled to the benefit of Section 21 as amended by Act XX of 1954 and secondly that the order of the Compensation Officer made on October 25, 1956 had finally decided the status of Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh as Adhivasis and not having been appealed against, the question cannot now be reopened. We shall take these points one by one. 6. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended in 1954 by the above amending Act in several respects. We are only concerned with the amendment of Sections 21 and 157 and the addition of Chapter IX-A. Section 21 leaving out portions not necessary for our purposes provides after the amendment as follows: Section 21. Non-occupancy tenants, Sub-tenants of grove-lands and tenant's mortgagees to be assamis. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, occupied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (g) under detention or imprisonment. may let the whole or any part of his holding. After the amendment it reads as follows : Section 157-Lease by a disabled person.-(1) A bhumidhar or a sirdar or an asami holding the land in lieu of maintenance allowance Under Section 11 who is- (a) an unmarried woman, or if married divorced or separated from her husband or whose husband suffers, from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (e) or (d) or a widow; (b) a minor whose father suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (c) or (d) or has died; and (c) a lunatic or an idiot; (d) a person incapable of cultivating by reason of blindness, or other physical infirmity; (e) prosecuting studies in a recognised institution and does not exceed 25 years in age and whose father suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (e) or (d) or has died : (f) in the Military, Naval, or Air service of the Indian Dominion; or (g) under detention or imprisonment; may let the whole or any part of his holding. 8. The difference here is that a lease by a woman although married was possible if her husband was suffering from insanit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions are to apply mutatis mutandis to a suit by a person claiming to be sirdar (Adhivasi). Section 234A then provides that the provisions of Section 229B mentioned above shall apply to an Adhivasi as if he were an Asami. Schedule II to the Land Reforms Act in Item 34 appoints the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, as competent court for the trial of suits for declaration of rights Under Section 229B. The Schedule also provides for an appeal to the Commissioner from the order and to the Board of Revenue by a second appeal. 10. In the present case the Compensation Officer who passed the order on October 25, 1956 was also Assistant Collector, 1st Class but he did not refer the case to himself after framing an issue and hence his order has been treated to have been passed by him in his capacity as a Compensation Officer. 11. We will now come to the question whether Section 157 also operates retrospectively with Section 21. The latter was made retrospective expressly. The High Court in the Division Bench decision held that Section 157 was also retrospective by implication. The contention of the appellants is that Smt. Harbheji was not entitled to take the benefit of the amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (h) of Section 21 is made neutral. Therefore if the new Section 21(h) is to be read retrospectively from the commencement of Land Reforms Act, the amendment of Section 157(1) which was made simultaneously must also be clearly intended to operate with retrospection. The legislature intended that at any given moment of time from the commencement of the Lands Reforms Act all the clauses or one or more them and not Clause (e) alone were to be taken note of. The amendment of Clauses (h) speaks of one or more clauses and when we read the Clauses of Section 157(1) we find them altered also. Therefore the new clauses must be read and not the old clauses. The High Court was thus right in its conclusion that the clauses of Section 157(1) as amended also operate retrospectively. This disposes of the first point. 14. The next point is about the finality of the order of October 25, 1956 passed by the Compensation Officer. We cannot refer that order to his capacity as the Assistant Collector. An act would, no doubt be referable to a capacity which would give it validity. But the law required the compensation officer to frame an issue and refer it to the competent court. He could not decide th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
