Holding

Section 122B(4F) confers a positive, non‑transferable Bhumidhar right on an eligible agricultural labourer and permits a maintainable application for correction of revenue records, rendering the S.D.O.’s order valid.

Summary

Manorey, an agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste, had cultivated a 2.45‑acre plot for 14‑15 years that was vested in the Gaon Sabha and later leased to others. He filed an application under Section 122B(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking protection of his possession and correction of revenue records to be recorded as a Bhumidhar with non‑transferable rights. The Sub‑Divisional Officer allowed the application, deleting the Gaon Sabha’s name, but the Board of Revenue and the Allahabad High Court set aside the order on the ground that such an application was not maintainable. The Supreme Court held that sub‑section 4F not only shields possession but confers a positive right of Bhumidhar, and that an eligible person may file an application to have the revenue records corrected. Consequently, the S.D.O.’s order was restored and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

What is the scope of Section 122B(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 with respect to the right to be recorded as a Bhumidhar?
Whether an application under Section 122B(4F) for correction of revenue records is maintainable?
Whether the deeming provision in Section 122B(4F) obviates the need to obtain an allotment order under Sections 195 and 198?

Legislation cited

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 117(1)(i), s. 122B(4F), s. 131(b), s. 132, s. 195, s. 198, s. 4

Subjects

Land reformsZamindari Abolition ActBhumidharScheduled CasteAgricultural labourerRevenue recordsSection 122B(4F)Non‑transferable rightsDeeming provisionEviction

Judgment

A MANOREY @ MANOHAR
v.
BOARD OF REVENUE (U.P.) AND ORS.

APRIL :?., 2003

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.]

land Reforms :

UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Sections
C l 228(4F) and 195-Applicant agricultural labourer belonging to scheduled
caste, cultivating piece of land for 14-15 years-Gaon Sabha leasing land to
others-Applicant filing application for recognition of rights and amendment
in revenue records-Maintainability of-Held, Section 122 B(4F) protects the
possession and also confers positive right of Bhumidhars on the occupant of
D land satisfaing the criteria mentioned-Thus applicant entitled to protection
of his rights-Since applicant is deemed to be admitted as Bhumidhar with
non-transferable rights under Section 195 as good as statutorily recognized
Bhumidhar which obviates need to approach Gaon Sabha, he is entitled to
seek correction of revenue records.

E Appellant an agricultural labourer belongs to Scheduled Caste. He
had been cultivating a piece of land for about 14-15 years. The said land
was leased out to the respondent by Gaon Sabha treating the land as fallow
land. The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) approved the said allotment.
Appellant apprehended eviction and filed an application for protection of
F his rights under Section 1228 (4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 and for necessary amendments to be made in the
revenue records. SDO held that rights over the land accrued to the
appellant, therefore, directed his name to be recorded as Bhumidhar with
non-transferable right by deleting the name of Gaon Sabha in the records.
Appellate authority upheld the order. However, both the Board of Revenue
G and High Court set aside the order on the ground of non-maintainability
of such application. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Sub-section (4F) of Section 1228 of the U.P. Zamindari
H 274
MANOREY @MANOHAR v. BOARD OF REVENUE (U.P) 275
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 not merely provides shield to A
protect the possession, but it also confers a positive right of Bhumidhar on
the occupant of the land satisfying the criteria laid down in that sub-
section. It carves out an exception in favour of an agricultural labourer
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe having land below the
ceiling of 3.125 acres. Irrespective of the circumstances in which such B
eligible person occupied the land vested in Gaon Sabha (other than the
land mentioned in Section 132), no action to evict him shall be taken and
moreover, he shall be deemed to have been admitted as a Bhumidhar with
non transferable rights over the land under Section 195, provided he
satisfies the conditions specified in the sub-section. The deeming provision
has been specifically enacted as a measure of agrarian reform, with a C
thrust on socio-economic justice. In the instant case, the appellant satisfies
the conditions and thus shall not be evicted by taking recourse to sub-
sections (I) to (3) of Section 1228 and is entitled to safeguard his possession
as against the Gaon Sabha. 1279-A-DI

Ramdin v. Board of Revenue, 119941 Revenue Decisions 388, referred D
to.

1.2. Section 195 lays down that the Land Management Committee,
with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub
Division, shall have the right to admit any person as Bhumidhar with non-
transferable rights to any vacant land (other than the land falling under E
Section I 32) vested in the Ga on Sabha. Section 198 prescribes 'the order
of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197'.
The last part of sub-section (4F) of Section 1228 confers, by a statutory
fiction, the status of Bhumidhar with non transferable rights en the eligible
occupant of the land as ifhe has been admitted as such under Section 195 F
to which full effect must be given. In substance and in effect the deeming
provision declares that the statutorily recognized Bhumidhar should be as
good as a person admitted to Bhumadhari rights under Section 195 read
with other provisions. In a way, sub-section (4F) supplements Section I 95
by specifically granting the same benefit to a person coming within the
protective umbrella of that sub-section. The need to approach the Gaon G
Sabha under Section 195 read with Section 198 is obviated by the deeming
provision contained in sub-section (4F). Thus there is no warrant to
constrict the· scope of the deeming provision. 1280-C-EI

H
--· 1.3. There is no bar against an application being made by the eligible
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A person coming within the four corners of sub-section (4F) to effect
necessary changes in the revenue record. When once the claim of the
applicant is accepted, it is the bounden duty of the concerned revenue
authorities to make necessary entries in revenue records to give effect to
the statutory mandate. The obligation to do so arises by necessary
B implication by reason of the statutory right vested in the person coming
within the ambit of sub-section (4F). The lack of specific provision for
making an application under the Act is no ground to dismiss the
application as not maintainable. The revenue records should naturally fall
in line with the rights statutorily recognized. The Sub-Divisional Officer
was, therefore, within his rights to allow the application and direct the
C correction of the records. The Board of Revenue and the High Court
should not have set aside that order. The fact that the Land Management
Committee of Gaon Sabha had created lease hold rights in favour of the
respondent is of no consequence. Such lease, in the face of the statutory
right of the appellant, is non-est in the eye of law and is liable to be ignored.
1280-F-H; 281-A-BI
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4654of1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.1997 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14131 of 1997.

E Rakesh U. Upadhyay and B.P. Yadav, for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. VENKATARAMA REDD I, J. Aggrieved by the following order of
the Board of Revenue, U.P., the appellant herein preferred Writ Petition
F under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Allahabad:

"The proceedings began on an application dt. 20-12-1990 moved by
Manorey for declaration of rights u/s 122-B (4-F) Z.A. Act. Two
courts have allowed.

G No application is suppor1able under this Section. Revision is allowed.
Orders of two courts below is set aside. Application is dismissed."

The High Court upheld the view of the Board of Revenue and dismissed
the Writ Petition. In doing so, the High Court followed its earlier decision
reported in Ramdin v. Board of Revenue. (1994) Revenue Decisions, Page
H 388]. The present appeal is directed against that order of the High Court.
MANOREY @MANOHAR v. BOARD OF REVENUE (U.P.) [REDDI, J.] 277

Going by the orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court, the A
maintainability of an application seeking recognition of right under Section
122B(4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the issue that loomed large before the
Board and the High Court. We are of the view that it would be travesty of
justice to deny relief to the appellant who is a Scheduled caste agricultural B
labourer and relegate him to an unfortunate situation of being left without
remedy though he has a statutory right to continue in possession and enjoyment
of the land. The High Court seems to have taken a narrow view of the rights
and remedies of the appellant, leaving him to pursue a tortuous course of
litigation to safeguard his rights.

The b·ief facts are these: The appellant who is a landless labourer
c
belonging to scheduled caste filed an application before the S.D.O., Konch
on 20.12.1990 stating that he had been cultivating the land admeasuring 2.45
acres since 14-15 years and that the said land was leased out to others
(respondents herein) in the year 1990 by the Gaon Sabha of Toma village
treating it as fallow land. The said allotment was approved by the S.D.O., D
Konch on 14.11.1990. Apprehending that the appellant will be evicted, he
filed an application on 20.12.1990 before the S.D.O., Konch for protection
of his right under sub-Section (4F) of Section 122B of the Act and to direct
necessary amendments to be made in the revenue records. It appears that in
the relevant record, the Gaon Sabha was shown to be holding the land in E
question whiCh got vested in it under Section 117-( 1)(i) of the Act, on the
publication of a Notification under Section 4. The S.D.O. on inquiry held that
the petitioner was continuously in possession prior to 30th June, 1975 (it is
not clear whether the correc/ year is 1975 or 1985) and continued to be so
even on the date of allotment of the land to a third party. He referred to sub-
Section 4F of Section 122B and held that rights over the land accrued to him F
under the said provision. He therefore directed that the name of the appellant
should be recorded as Bhumidhar with non transferable right by deleting the
name of Gaon Sabha in the records. On appeal preferred by the State of U.P.,
the Gaon Sabha and the allottees of land (R-2 to R-5 herein) the appellate
authority i.e., Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division agreed G
with the findings of the S.D.O. that the respondent (appe.llant herein) had
been in continuous possession prior to and after 30th June,. L985 and as he
is a member of Scheduled caste, his right under Section 122B(4F) was
established. The appellate authority also observed that the land was not vacant
at the time of grant of lease by the Gaon Sabha. Both the authorities referred
to entries in khasras for the crop years 1389-1391 faslis (corresponding to H
vii
'
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S C.R.

A 1979-1981) and irrigation receipts pertaining to 1393-1397 fas Iis.
Though all the respondents were served, none of them entered
appearance and therefore the appeal has been considered ex-parte.

To appreciate the issue, the reference to Section 1228 is necessary.
B The said Section prescribes the procedure for eviction of a person wrongfully
occupying or damaging or misappropriating the property vested in a gaon
sabha or a local authority. The Land Management committee or local authority,
as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector and thereupon the
Assistant Collector should issue notice to the person concerned to show cause.
C If the Assistant Collector is not satisfied with the explanation, he may direct
eviction by using force if necessary and may further direct that compensation
be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. The person
aggrieved has a right of revision to the Collector and he can also tile a suit
to establish his right. Sub-Section (4F) is the crucial provision which at the
relevant time reads as follows:
D
"[4F] Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-Sections, where
any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under
Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied
it from before June 30, 1985 and the land so occupied together with
E land, if any, held by him from before the said date as 13humidhar,
sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no
action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management
Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and it shall be
deemed that he has been admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights of that land under Section 195.]"
F
It is true that the application of the nature tiled by the appellant does
not fall within the four corners of Section 1228. Sub-Sections (I), (2) & (3)
of Section 1228 only empower the Assistant Collector to initiate action on
the basis of information received by him to put an end to misuse or
G unauthorized occupation of the property belonging to Gaon Sabha or a local
authority. It does not specifically provide for the entertainment of an application
by a person who seeks protection of his rights under sub-Section (4F). But,
that is of no material consequence in view of what emerges from the discussion
that follows

H First, the endeavour should be to analyze and identify the nature of the
lt
J

MANOREY @MANOHAR v. BOARD OF REVENUE (U.P.) [REDD!. J.] 279

right or protection conferred by sub-Section (4F) of Section 122B. Sub- A
Sections (I) to (3) and the ancillary provisions upto sub-Section (4E) deal
inter alia with the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants 'Of land
vested in Gaon Sabha. Sub-Section (4F) carves out an exception in favour of
....:; an agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
having land below the ceiling of 3.125 acres. Irrespective of the circumstances B
in which such eligible person occupied the land vested in Gaon Sabha (other
than the land mentioned in Section 132), no action to evict him shall be taken
and moreover, he shall be deemed to have been admitted as a Bhumidhar
with non transferable rights over the land, provided he satisfies the conditions
specified in. the sub-Section. According to the findings of the Sub-Divisional
Officer as well as the appellate authority, the appellant does satisfy the C
conditions If so, two legal consequences follow. Such occupant of the land

- shall not be evicted by taking recourse to sub-Section (1) to (3) of Section
1228. It means that the occupant of the land who satisfies the conditions
under sub-Section (4F) is entitled to safeguard his possession as against the
Gaon Sabha. The second and more important right which sub-Section (4F)
confers on him is that he is endowed with the rights of a Bhumidhar with non D
transferable rights. The deeming provision has been specifically enacted as a
measure of agrarian refonn, with a thrust on socio-economic justice. The
statutorily conferred right of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights finds its
echo in clause (b) of Section 131. Any person who acquires the rights of
Bh11111idhar under or in accordance with the provisions of the Act is recognized E
under Section 131 as falling within the class of Bhumidhar. The right acquired
or accrued under sub-Section (4F) is one such right that falls within the
purview of Section 13 l(b).

Thus, sub-Section (4F) of Section 1228 not merely provides a shield
to protect the possession as opined by the High Court, but it also confers a F
positive right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the land satisfying the criteria
laid down in that sub-Section. Notwithstanding the clear language in which
the deeming provision is couched and the ameliorative purpose of the
legislation, the learned single Judge of the High Court had taken the view in
Ramdin v. Board of Revenue (supra) (followed by the same learned Judge in G
the instant case) that the Bh11111idhari rights of the occupant contemplated by
sub-Section (4F) can only blossom out when there is a specific allotment
order by the Land Management Committee under Section 198. According to
the High Court, the deeming provision contained in sub-Section (4F) cannot
be overstretched to supersede the other provisions in the Act dealing
specifically with the creation of the right of Bhumidhar. In other words, the H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A view of the High Court was that a person covered by the beneficial provision
contained in sub-Section (4F) will have to still go through the process of
allotment under Section 198 even though he is not liable for eviction. As a
corollary to this view, it was held that the occupant was not entitled to seek
correction of revenue records. even if his case falls under sub-Section (4F)
of Section 1228. We hold that the view of the High Court is clearly
B unsustainable. It amounts to ignoring the effect of a deeming provision enacted
with a definite social purpose. When once the deeming provision unequivocally
provides for the admission of the person satisfying the requisite criteria laid
down in the provision as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section
195, full effect must be given to it. Section 195 lays down that the Land
C Management Committee, with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector
in-charge of the Sub Division. shall have the right to admit any person as
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any vacant land (other than the
land falling under Section 132) vested in the Gaon Sabha. Section 198
prescribes "the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections
195 and 197". The last part of sub-Section (4F) of Section 1228 confers by
D a statutory fiction the status of Bh11111idhar with non transferable rights on the
eligible occupant of the land as ifhe has been admitted as such under Section
195. In substance and in effect. the deeming provision declares that the
statutorily recognized Bhumidhur should be as good as a person admitted to
Bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read with other provisions. In a way,
E sub-Section (4F) supplements Section 195 by specifically granting the same
benefit to a person coming within the protective umbrella of that sub-Section.
The need to approach the Gaon Sabha under Section 195 read with Section
198 is obviated by the deeming provision contained in sub-Section (4F). We
find no warrant to constrict the scope of deeming provision.

F That being the legal position. there is no bar against an application
being made by the eligible person coming within the four corners of sub-
section (4F) to effect necessary changes in the revenue record. When once
the claim of the applicant is accepted. it is the bounden duty of the concerned
revenue authorities to make necess;1ry entries in revenue records to give
G effect to the statutory mandate. The obligation to do so arises by necessary
implication by reason of the statutory right vested in the person coming
within the ambit of ~lib-Section (4F). The lack of specific provision for
making an application under the Act is no ground to dismiss the application
as not maintainable. The revenue records should naturally fall in line with the
rights statutorily recognized. The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore within
H his rights to allow the application and direct the correction of the records.
MANOREY @MANOHAR v. BOARD OF REVENUE (U.P.) [REDDI, J.] 281

The Board of Revenue and the High Court should not have set aside that A
order. The fact that the Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha had
created lease hold rights in favour of the respondents herein is of no
consequence. Such lease, in the face of the statutory right of the appellant,
is nones! in the eye of law and is liable to be ignored.

It is surprising that the State of U.P. had chosen to file an appeal B
against the order of the S.0.0., in tandem with the Gaon Sabha. It seems to
·- be a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the concerned
authorities of the State who are supposed to effectuate the socio-economic
objective of the legislation.

The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue and the C
High Court are set aside. The S.D.O's order is restored. No costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.