Ram Sundar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Jaunpur and Others

Reserved -: 10/10/2023 Delivered -: 17/10/2023 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 135 of 1977 Petitioner :- Ram Sundar Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Jaunpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganga Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- V. Singh,S.C.,Saraj Kumar,V.N. Singh,Vimal Kumar Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1The original petitioner had claimed himself to be a grove-holder over part of 0.94 acres of plot being no. 207 situated in village Saddapur, Pargana Rari, District Jaunpur as well as on rest of said plot, claimed that he became a hereditary tenant by operation of law being in possession even prior to date of vesting.

¶2In the first round of litigation, matter reached up to this Court and by order dated 17.12.1970 passed in Writ Petition No. 732 of 1965, remitted the case to Deputy Director of Consolidation with a direction to take into consideration of the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act. On remand, the Deputy Director of Consolidation by an impugned order dated 25.08.1976 held that entries in 1356-F and 1359-F were not genuine in regard to rest of land and as such petitioner would not be entitled under Section 206 of United Provinces Tenancy Act (for short "Act of 1939"). So far as claim in regard to 0.94 acres was concerned was already determined in favour of petitioner. Since no writ petition was filed against said finding. The submission was noted by this Court that "his submission is that it was found that plot no. 207 has ceased to be a grove land except to extent of '0.94 acres'. Relevant part of impugned order is quoted below -: "५-

मैनꘜ쇗इꗼ꾉मामलꘜ쇗मꘜ쇗ꗼ꾉भ溦詚न्यायालय䦎屢कꘜ쇗 निन्ቓयकኇ⸕पढातथा

मानन溦詚यउ푤�न्यायालयकꘜ쇗्ቛ ारानि यꘜ쇗गयꘜ쇗निन्ቓयकኇ⸕भ溦詚ध्यानपू्ብक

पढा尠䩇जैꗼ꾉ाऊपरकहागयाहैनिक

मानन溦詚यउ푤�न्यायालयनꘜ쇗निन %श

नि यानिकनिनगरान溦詚कता कꘜ쇗मामलꘜ쇗कኇ⸕उ्ቈर्ቚ

ꘜ쇗शनि)नꘜ쇗न्ꗼ꾉溦詚एक्) की

धारा२०팙륈कꘜ쇗अन्तगतपुन鮸澘 ꘜ쇗खनाआ्ብश्यकहै्ብ इꗼ꾉溦詚दृनि8कኇ⸕्ቓ ꗼ꾉ꘜ쇗

मैनꘜ쇗नि्ብचारभ溦詚निकयाहै尠䩇प्ቔा्ብल溦詚परउपलब्धकागजातकꘜ쇗अ्ብलኇ⸕कन

ꗼ꾉ꘜ쇗स्प8 हैनिकबन् ኇ⸕बस्तꗼ꾉ानि क्ብ बन् ኇ⸕बस्तहालमꘜ쇗यहगा)ा

जम溦詚न ारानकीबागथ溦詚尠䩇१९२팙륈मꘜ쇗आगरानि)नꘜ쇗न्ꗼ꾉溦詚पारिरतहኇ⸕नꘜ쇗कꘜ쇗

प्ቐातह溦詚काश्तकारኇ⸕कኇ⸕बागपरबाग ार溦詚कꘜ쇗 अधिधकारनि यꘜ쇗गयꘜ쇗्ብ

बागमान溦詚गई尠䩇इꗼ꾉कꘜ쇗पू्ብ काश्तकार溦詚बागकाकኇ⸕ईऔधिचत्यनह溦詚रहा尠䩇

१३३२फ०याउꗼ꾉कꘜ쇗 प्ቐातकभ溦詚भ溦詚निनगरान溦詚कता कीयहबाग

अंनिकतनह溦詚हुई尠䩇इꗼ꾉कꘜ쇗नि्ብरू꺵碝बन् ኇ⸕बस्तहाल्ብ बन् ኇ⸕बस्तꗼ꾉ानि ककꘜ쇗

उपलब्धउ्ቌर्ቓ䦎屢ꗼ꾉ꘜ쇗यहस्प8 हैनिकयहबाग्ቚ धितप्ቌ溦詚कꘜ쇗मूरिरꗼ꾉की

थ溦詚尠䩇्ብ उनलኇ⸕गኇ⸕नꘜ쇗अपनाहकꗼ꾉 ै्ብ कायमरखा्ብ निकꗼ꾉溦詚कኇ⸕काश्त

करनꘜ쇗कीइजाजतनह溦詚 溦詚尠䩇यहभ溦詚स्प8 हैनिकनिनगरान溦詚कता कꘜ쇗

मूरिरꗼ꾉ꗼ꾉भाऊबन् ኇ⸕बस्तहालमꘜ쇗睰厛पꘜ쇗डኇ⸕परकानिबजअंनिकतहै尠䩇यह

खꗼ꾉रꘜ쇗कꘜ쇗खानाकैनिफयतकाइन््ቖाजहै

尠䩇इꗼ꾉इन््ቖाजꗼ꾉ꘜ쇗उनपꘜ쇗डኇ⸕पर

तኇ⸕ꗼ꾉भाऊकኇ⸕हकनिमलꗼ꾉कताथा尠䩇परन्तुउऩ्हꘜ쇗बागकीभूनिमपर

कኇ⸕ईभौनिमकअधिधकारनह溦詚निमलꗼ꾉कताथा尠䩇

परन्तुनि्ብ्ቛ ानउप

ꗼ꾉ंचालकचकबन् 溦詚नꘜ쇗इꗼ꾉गा)ꘜ쇗कꘜ쇗०९尟䃢धिडꗼ꾉मलरकबꘜ쇗परजिजꗼ꾉पर

अबबागहै尠䩇निनगरान溦詚कता कኇ⸕ꗼ꾉हबाग ारभूनिमधरमानलिलयाथा尠䩇्ብ ह

आ ꘜ쇗शअंधितमहै尠䩇उꗼ꾉कꘜ쇗 नि्ብरू꺵碝कኇ⸕ईरिर) याधिचकानह䁮䂯्ቚ स्तुतहुई尠䩇

अत鮸澘उꗼ꾉आ ꘜ쇗शकꘜ쇗नि्ብरू꺵碝अबमैकኇ⸕ईअन्यआ ꘜ쇗शपारिरतकरनꘜ쇗मꘜ쇗

अस्मथ हኇ⸕尠䩇अबयहतथ्यꗼ꾉ामनꘜ쇗आत溦詚हैनिकजबनिनगरान溦詚कता का

कኇ⸕ईभौनिमकअधिधकारइꗼ꾉गा)ꘜ쇗परजम溦詚न् ारानायाकाश्तकारानकभ溦詚

नह溦詚रहातኇ⸕जिजꗼ꾉अंशपरबागन8 हኇ⸕चुकीहैतኇ⸕उꗼ꾉परउन्हꘜ쇗

भौनिमकअधिधकारबहैजिꗼ꾉यतमौरूꗼ꾉溦詚 ार्ብ ꗼ꾉溦詚र ार溦詚अधिधकार ꘜ쇗नꘜ쇗का

्ቚ ��कैꗼ꾉ꘜ쇗उठꘜ쇗गा尠䩇मानन溦詚यउ푤�न्यायालयकꘜ쇗ꗼ꾉म्ቌ जबबातकह溦詚गई

थ溦詚तኇ⸕निनगरान溦詚कता कꘜ쇗्ብ कीलनꘜ쇗यह溦詚बातꗼ꾉ामनꘜ쇗रक्ख溦詚थ溦詚निक

उ्ቈर्ቚ

ꘜ쇗शनि)नꘜ쇗न्ꗼ꾉溦詚एक्) कीधारा२०팙륈कꘜ쇗अन्तगतजኇ⸕बाग ारኇ⸕कꘜ쇗

अधिधकारया ाधियत््ብ हኇ⸕तꘜ쇗है尠䩇उनका्ብ्ቓ नहै尠䩇औरउꗼ꾉मꘜ쇗यहलिलखा

हैयनि बागकास््ብभा्ብ ꗼ꾉मा瞸滽हኇ⸕जायतኇ⸕्ብ ाग ारउकामौरूꗼ꾉溦詚

काश्तकारहኇ⸕जायꘜ쇗गा尠䩇परन्तुधारा२०팙륈्ብ २०५एकꗼ꾉ाथपढा

जानाउधिचतहኇ⸕गा尠䩇धारा२०५कꘜ쇗 अन्तगतबाग ारकीपरिरभाषा 溦詚

गईहै尠䩇्ብ बाग ार्ብ ह溦詚व्यनि\ हैजिजꗼ꾉कኇ⸕जम䁮䂯 ारनꘜ쇗भूनिमबागलगानꘜ쇗

हꘜ쇗तु 溦詚हኇ⸕चाहꘜ쇗्ብ हलिललिखतस््ብ溦詚कृधितहኇ⸕यास्थान溦詚यरिर्ብाजपर

आधारिरतहኇ⸕尠䩇इꗼ꾉मामलꘜ쇗मꘜ쇗निनगरान溦詚कता यहनह溦詚कहतꘜ쇗निकउनकꘜ쇗

मूर溦詚ꗼ꾉कኇ⸕जम䁮䂯 ारनꘜ쇗इꗼ꾉भूखन्डकኇ⸕पꘜ쇗勛岍लगानꘜ쇗कꘜ쇗लिलएनि याथा尠䩇

ब꽱�`कउनकायहकहाहैनिकचूंनिकबन् ኇ⸕बस्तहालमꘜ쇗उनकानाम

खꗼ꾉रꘜ쇗मꘜ쇗अंनिकतहै尠䩇इꗼ꾉लिलयꘜ쇗्ብ ꘜ쇗ꗼ꾉हबाग ारभूनिमधरहैऔरअबजिजꗼ꾉

अंशपरपꘜ쇗डनह溦詚रहꘜ쇗उꗼ꾉कꘜ쇗्ብ हꗼ꾉溦詚र ारहै尠䩇परन्तुउनकाकहना

गलतहै尠䩇यनि ्ብ ꘜ쇗जम䁮䂯 ारहኇ⸕तꘜ쇗्ብ खꘜ쇗्ብ) मꘜ쇗उनकानामअंनिकतहኇ⸕ता

तኇ⸕्ብ ास्त्ብ मꘜ쇗्ብ ꘜ쇗पꘜ쇗डኇ⸕कꘜ쇗ꗼ꾉मा瞸滽हኇ⸕नꘜ쇗परउꗼ꾉अंशपरजिजम्मन२कꘜ쇗

खु काश्तहኇ⸕तꘜ쇗्ብ जम溦詚 ार溦詚नि्ብनाशअधिधनिनयमकꘜ쇗 प्ቐातभूनिमधरहኇ⸕ जातꘜ쇗 尠䩇 팙륈-

अत鮸澘इꗼ꾉मामलꘜ쇗मꘜ쇗एकह溦詚 ኇ⸕षहैनिकनिनगरान溦詚कता एकओर

अपनꘜ쇗आपबहैजिꗼ꾉यतमालिलकबाग ारजम溦詚न् ारानाहकूकपरजम䁮䂯 ार

कꘜ쇗्ብं शजኇ⸕कꘜ쇗ꗼ꾉ाथꗼ꾉हबाग ारभूनिमधर溦詚कꘜ쇗अधिधकारमांगतꘜ쇗है尠䩇्ብ

ूꗼ꾉र溦詚

ओरजኇ⸕बागꗼ꾉ꘜ쇗रनिहतभूनिमपरबजायभूनिमधर溦詚मांगनꘜ쇗कꘜ쇗धारा२०팙륈

उ०्ቚ ०नि)नꘜ쇗न्ꗼ꾉溦詚एक्) कꘜ쇗 अन्तगतमौरूꗼ꾉溦詚काश्तकार溦詚कꘜ쇗 अधिधकार

" मांगतꘜ쇗है尠䩇

¶3Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has misread provisions of Section 206 of Tenancy Act, 1939 and despite on basis of spot inspection wherein original petitioner was found on possession over major portion of land in dispute, an incorrect finding was returned that no benefit could be accrued to petitioners in terms of Section 206 of Tenancy Act, 1939.

¶4Learned counsel has referred few grounds mentioned in writ petition to press his arguments and for reference grounds no. 1 to 5 are quoted below -: "i. because on the facts found by the learned D.D.C. in the course of his earlier judgment dated 8.10.64 and the findings of the High Court dated 17.12.70 in the earlier writ petition no. 732 of 1965, the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of section 206 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, and the learned D.D.C. erred in holding otherwise in its present judgment dated

25.08.76. ii. because originally plot no. 207 was a complete grove and the petitioner was the grove holder prior to U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and when a part of the grove was converted into cultivable land, the petitioner became hereditary tenant of the part within the meaning of Section 206 of U.P. Tenancy Act and finally became bhoomidhar by operation of law. The Court below erred in otherwise. iii. because it was not competent for learned D.D.C. to travel beyond the ambit of remand order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated

17.12.1970. iv. because the Khasra entries of 1356 and 1359-F having been found by the genuine documents by the learned D.D.C. in his judgment dated 8.10.64 and also by the High Court in its judgment dated 17.12.70, it was not competent for the D.D.C. to upset that finding. v. because no reasons have been assigned by the learned D.D.C. why the petitioner's right over the other plots 208 to 216 and 218 should be ignored when there was no objection from the Gaon Sabha or others."

¶5Learned counsel for petitioners has referred revenue entries from 1289-F to 1359-F that ancestors of petitioners were recorded as sahbaghdar (co-grove holder).

¶6Above submissions were opposed by S/Sri A.K. Srivastava and Virendra Singh, Advocates for respondents that in terms of definition of a 'grove holder', petitioners could not get the right on entire land, since a large part of land was discontinued to be a bagh (grove land) and which became bhoomidhari of original jamindar. The claim of petitioners was justified qua to area measuring 0.94 acres, where his right being 'grove holder' was justified since 'grove' existed, however, so far as rest of land was concerned, admittedly, there was no 'grove'.

¶7Learned counsel has further submitted that Revisional Authority has rightly allowed revision petition in part and modified orders passed by lower Authorities to the extent that name of Ram Sundar i.e. original petitioner herein would be entered as sah-bhoomidhar along wih Sripal Singh and Bihari over 0.94 acres of land of plot no. 207 and rejected the claim of original petitioner in regard to rest of land.

¶8Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶9In order to appreciate rival submissions, it would be relevant to reproduce relevant Sections of Act of 1939 -: "3. Interpretation -: In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, -

(1) all words and expressions used to denote the possessor of any right, title or interest in land, whether the same be proprietary or otherwise, shall be deemed to include the predecessors and successors in right, title or interest of such person;

(2) xxxx

(3) xxxx

(4) xxxx

(5) xxxx

(6) "grove-land" means any specific piece of land in a mahal or mahals having trees planted thereon in such numbers that they preclude, or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove;

(7) xxxx

(8) xxxx

(9) "khudkasht" means land other than sir cultivated by a landlord, an under-proprietor or a permanent tenure-holder as such either himself or by hired labour;

(10) "land" means land which is let or held for growing of crops, or as groveland or for pasturage. It includes land covered by water used for the purpose of growing singhara or other produce, but does not include land for the time being occupied by buildings or appurtenant thereto other than buildings which are improvements;

¶205Definition of grove holder -: A person who has planted a grove, -

(a) on land which was let or granted to him by a landlord, for the purpose of planting a grove;

(b) with the written permission of the landlord, or in accordance with local custom entitling him to do so, on land which he held as a tenant other than as a subtenant, a permanent tenure holder or a fixed-rate tenant, or a tenant holding on special terms in Oudh or an occupancy tenant in Oudh; shall be the grove-holder of such grove. Provided that where the permission was granted in Agra before the 7th day of September, 1926, and in Oudh prior to the commencement of this Act, the permission need not have been in writing and may have been either ex-tenant or pressed or implied.

¶206Rights and liabilities of grove holder -: Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or any custom or contract to the contrary, -

(a) the rights of a grove-holder shall, subject to the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) and clauses (d) to (f) of Section 45, which shall apply to grove-holders as they apply to tenants, subsist so long as grove land retains its character as such. On the land ceasing to be grove-land the holder shall become a hereditary such land;

(b) a grove-holder may re-plant trees as they are cut or die and any person who is recorded as a grove-holder of any land on the 1st day of July, 1937, and is in possession thereof at the commencement of this Act, may re-plant trees thereon within three years of the commencement of this Act;

(c) the interest of a grove-holder shall be transferable by voluntary transfer or in execution of a decree of a civil or revenue Court or otherwise;

(d) the interest of a grove-holder shall devolve according to the personal law applicable to him;

(e) while the land continues to be grove-land, a grove-holder shall be liable to ejectment on one of the ground mentioned in Section 172, and the provisions of Section 157, Section 159, Section 160, Section 162, Section 173, Section 174, Sections 181 to 183, Section 185 and Section 186 shall apply to him as if he were a tenant:

(f) the provisions of Section 1 [ 49 ], 2 [ 59 ] to 64 and of Chapter VII and of clauses (b), (d) and (e) of Section 236 and of Section 237 to 240 shall apply to grove-holders as they apply to tenants, except that the provisions of Section 148 shall apply only to the extent to which they refer to the recovery of rent by suit;

(g) where a person becomes a grove-holder in respect of land of which he is a tenant, he shall hold such land as grove-holder in supersession of all subsisting rights and liabilities so far as they are inconsistent therewith."

¶10In present case, claim of petitioner of being grove holder was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in regard to area measuring 0.94 acres of plot no. 207, which was not challenged at behest of respondents. The dispute remained was in regard to rest of land i.e. whether rest of land was grove land and original petitioner was a grove holder or not. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, he has approached this Court by present writ petition.

¶11The definition of 'grove land' is mentioned in Section 3(6) of Act of 1939 and has already been referred in preceding paragraph and careful reading of same would indicate that 'grove land' means any specific piece of land having trees planted thereon in such number that they preclude or when fully grown will preclude the land or any considerable portion thereof being used primarily for any other purpose. Therefore, in a case where there were no trees planted on a particular portion of land or trees are planted in such a way that when they fully grow would not preclude the land being used primary for any other purpose, would not fall under 'grove land'. [emphasis supplied by this Court]

¶12In the present case, there is no finding or material to show that on land presently in dispute, trees were planted or if planted, they had fully grown, so that they had precluded the land being used primary for any other purpose other than grove land rather there are findings on basis of record that present land in dispute was used for agricultural purpose, therefore, Court is of considered opinion that land presently in dispute would not fall under grove land. The counsel for petitioner have seriously disputed the nature of land in dispute.

¶13In view of above findings, since land in dispute was not 'grove land' therefore, original petitioner could not fall within definition of a 'grove holder' since for that land has to be declared being a grove land.

¶14Therefore, since neither the land in dispute was a grove land nor original petitioner was a 'grove holder', hence, rights and liabilities of 'grove holder' as provided under Section 206 of Act of 1939 could not be granted to original petitioner. In this regard, following finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation would be relevant and learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to refute said finding and same is quoted below -: "

परन्तुधारा२०팙륈्ብ २०५एकꗼ꾉ाथपढाजानाउधिचतहኇ⸕गा尠䩇धारा

२०५कꘜ쇗 अन्तगतबाग ारकीपरिरभाषा 溦詚गईहै尠䩇्ብ बाग ार्ብ ह溦詚

व्यनि\ हैजिजꗼ꾉कኇ⸕जम䁮䂯 ारनꘜ쇗भूनिमबागलगानꘜ쇗हꘜ쇗तु 溦詚हኇ⸕चाहꘜ쇗्ብ ह

लिललिखतस््ብ溦詚कृधितहኇ⸕यास्थान溦詚यरिर्ብाजपरआधारिरतहኇ⸕尠䩇इꗼ꾉मामलꘜ쇗

मꘜ쇗निनगरान溦詚कता यहनह溦詚कहतꘜ쇗निकउनकꘜ쇗मूर溦詚ꗼ꾉कኇ⸕जम䁮䂯 ारनꘜ쇗इꗼ꾉

भूखन्डकኇ⸕पꘜ쇗勛岍लगानꘜ쇗कꘜ쇗लिलएनि याथा尠䩇ब꽱�`कउनकायहकहाहै

निकचूंनिकबन् ኇ⸕बस्तहालमꘜ쇗उनकानामखꗼ꾉रꘜ쇗मꘜ쇗अंनिकतहै尠䩇इꗼ꾉लिलयꘜ쇗

्ብ ꘜ쇗ꗼ꾉हबाग ारभूनिमधरहैऔरअबजिजꗼ꾉अंशपरपꘜ쇗डनह溦詚रहꘜ쇗उꗼ꾉कꘜ쇗

्ብ हꗼ꾉溦詚र ारहै尠䩇परन्तुउनकाकहनागलतहै尠䩇यनि ्ብ ꘜ쇗जम䁮䂯 ारहኇ⸕तꘜ쇗्ብ

खꘜ쇗्ብ) मꘜ쇗उनकानामअंनिकतहኇ⸕तातኇ⸕्ብ ास्त्ብ मꘜ쇗्ብ ꘜ쇗पꘜ쇗डኇ⸕कꘜ쇗 ꗼ꾉मा瞸滽

हኇ⸕नꘜ쇗परउꗼ꾉अंशपरजिजम्मन२कꘜ쇗 खु काश्तहኇ⸕तꘜ쇗्ብ जम溦詚 ार溦詚

नि्ብनाशअधिधनिनयमकꘜ쇗प्ቐातभूनिमधरहኇ⸕जातꘜ쇗尠䩇"

¶15In view of above discussion, this Court has come to a conclusion that land in dispute would not fall under definition of a grove land, therefore, neither petitioner could fall under the definition of a grove holder nor he could not be granted any benefit of Section 206 of Act of 1939.

¶16Accordingly, this Court does not find any irregularity in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence, petition being sans merit is dismissed. Order Date :- October 17, 2023 Nirmal Sinha [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad