Holding

Section 21(1)(h) applies if the land‑holder or his predecessor was a disabled person on the material dates, and the identity of the land‑holder need not remain unchanged up to the vesting date; therefore the respondents remain Asamis.

Summary

The case concerned agricultural lands in Bulandshahr district where Smt. Ram Kali, a disabled land‑holder, leased the plots to Uttam Singh and Murli Singh in 1945. After her death, her brother Dan Sahai, also a disabled person, succeeded her interest and the lessees continued as year‑to‑year tenants. The question was whether, under Section 21(1)(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the lessees became Sirdars or remained Asamis. The Supreme Court held that the provision benefits a land‑holder (or his predecessor) who was a disabled person on the relevant dates, and it does not require the same person to remain the land‑holder up to the vesting date. Consequently, the respondents remained Asamis and could not be treated as Sirdars. The appeal by the petitioners was allowed, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether Section 21(1)(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 requires the disabled land‑holder to remain the land‑holder on the date immediately preceding the vesting date for its protection to apply.
How the term ‘land‑holder’ should be interpreted under the Act, particularly whether it includes predecessor‑in‑interest.

Legislation cited

Agra Tenancy Act, 1926s. 29(6), s. 29(7)
Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 157(1), s. 21(1)(h), s. 240B, s. 3(1), s. 3(11), s. 3(26)

Subjects

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms ActSection 21(1)(h)disabled land‑holderAsamiSirdarland‑holder definitionpredecessor‑in‑interest

Judgment

368

A RICHPAL SINGH & ANR. !
v.
DESH RAJ SINGH & ORS.

August 25, 1981
B
(V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND A. VARAOARAIAN, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, section 21 ( 1) (h),
construction of-Wht!ther the lessor{ landlord should not only be "disabled person"
on the relevant dates, but that he should continue to live on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting-Section 21( l)(h), section 157(1) and 240B, scope of.
c One Smt. Ram Kali, widow of Tikam Singh, was the land.holder of the
•
agricultural lands in dispute situated in villages Agaota and Khaiya Khera in
District Bulandshahr (U.P.). On June 14, 1945 Smt. Ram Kali, who was a
Sirdar and a "disabled person" falling within section 157(1) of the U.P. Zamin~
dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, executed a registered deed of lease
for a period of five years in favour of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh (the pre-
D decessors-in-title of the respondents) but before the expiry of the period of five
years she died in August, 1945 and Dan Sahai, who was also "disabled person"
within the ineaning of section 157(1) of the Act, (her husband's real brother
and predecessors-in-title of the appellants) inherited her interest. After the
expiry of the period of registered lease Uttam Singh and Murli Singh continued
to hold the lands as tenants from year to year under Dan Sahai.

In consolidation proceedings a question arose, whether Uttam Singh and
Murli Singh, who were lessees (adhivasio;) under Smt. Ram Kali and I>an Sahai
acquired the status of Sirdars, being entitled to be treated so under section 240B
of the Act or they remained Asamis of the plots in dispute. The Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court, relying on the earlier view taken by its Full Bench
in Srnt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji and others, (1970) A.L.J. 476, decided the appeals
in favour of the respondents by holding that they were not Asamis but had
become,Sirdars. Hence the appeals by certificate by successors-in-title of Ram
F Kali and Dan Sahai.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. On true construction of section 21(1)(h) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act the benefit thereof would be available to the
land-holder on the date of vesting, if the same land-holder or his predecessor
G existing on the material dates was a person or persons belonging to one or more
clauses mentioned in section 157(1) of the Act. (378 C-D]

Since, in the instant case, which falls under sub·clause (a) of clause (h) on
the date of actual letting Smt. Ram Kali was a "disabled person" and since on
the next material date, namely, April 9, 1946 Dan Sahai (successof-in·interest of
H 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 section 21(l)(h) and the respondents (successors of Uttam Singh and
RICHPAL V. DESHRAJ 369

Murli Singh) would remain Asamis and cannot be said to have become Sirdars A
within the meaning of section 240B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950. [378 E·F]

2. Section 21(1)(h) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 provides that every person occupying or holding land in any one of
the capacities mentioned in clause (h) on the date immediately preceding 1-7-1952
shall be deemed to be an Asami thereof notwithstanding anything contained B
in the Act, if the land-holder or if there are more than one all of them were
"disabled persons" within the meaning of section 157(1) both on the date of
letting as well as on April 9, 1946 where the letting has taken place prior to
April 9, 1946 or were disabled persons on the date of letting if the letting has
occurred after April 9, 1946. [373 A-Bl

3:1. It is true that clause (h) contains the phrase "where the land-holder
or if there are more than one land-holder all of them were ·person or persons
c
belonging" to any one or more than one of the clauses mentioned in section
157(1) of the Act. Under section 3(26) of the Act, the definition of "land·
holder" as given in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 has been adopted since the
expression is not defined in the Act. The expression ''land-holder" who obvi·
ously is a possessor of interest in land under section 3(11) of the U.P. Tenancy
Act, 1939 means a person to whom rent is payable, and under section 3(1), ibid.
by legal fiction it shall include his predecessor-in-interest as also successor-in•
D
interest to whom the rent was or is payable. It is such definition that will have
to be read in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act wherever
that expression occurs. Therefore· the expression "land-holder" occurring in
section 21(1)(h) of the Act must mean a person to whom rent is payable and by
fiction would include his predecessor-in-interest. Read in this light there would
be no question of adding the words predecessor-in-interest of the land-holder in
section 21(1)(h) as that would be implicit in the term "land-holder" on account E
of deeming provision of section 3(1) read with section 3(11) of the U.P. Tenancy
Act, 1939. [375 G-H, 376 A, D-F]

3:2. Section 157(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms

- Act permits leases by disabled persons and provides that a Bhumidar or on an
Asami holding land in lieu of maintenance allowance under section 11, who is a
disabled person falling under any of the clauses (a) to (g), may let the whole or F
any part of his holding, "provided that in the case of a holding held jointly by
more persons than one, but one or more of them but not all are subject to the
• disabilities mentioned in clauses (a) to (g), the person or persons may let out his
"' or their share in the holding". Having regard to the proviso under which even in
the case of a joint holding a lease of his share by a disabled land-holder is
permissible and the same is liable to be separated by a partition, the
expression "all of them" must refer to all such land holders who were disabled G
land-holders on the material dates. When under the proviso to section
157(1) a lease of his share by a disabled land-holder in joint holding
(held along with a non-disabled person) is expressly permitted and
11nder section 157(2) the Court has to determine such share of the
disabled lessor and partition the same on an application being made in that
\. H
behalf, it cannot be said that the Legislature intended to depfive the protection
of section 21(1)(h) to such disabled land-holder simply because on the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting such land-holder comes to hold the
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 1 S.C.R,

A land jointly whh some other non-disabled land-holder. On true construction i
of the crucial phrase occurring in clause (h) it is not possible to read into the
provision the additional requirement, namely, that the identity of the: 1and-
holder or land-holders must remain unchanged up to the date of vesting.
[376 G·H, 377 A, B-D, G·HJ

Further the scheme of the U,p, Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
B Act is different from the Agra Tenancy Act, '11926 and U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.
In each of the two provisions of these two Acts express words have been used
conferring personal rights on the individuals concerned which is not the case
with section 21(l)(h) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
[378 B-C)

Smt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji and Ors. [1970) A.L.J. 476 over ruled.
c Dwarika Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, All W.C. 213-1981 All. L.J.
484 approved.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-26
of 1973.
D From the judgment and order dated 27th October, 1972 of the
Allahabad High Conrt in Special Appeals Nos. 424 and 425 of 1971.

P. N. Lekhi, M. K. Garg and V. K. Jain for the Appellants.

A. P. S. Chauhan and C. K. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TULZAPURKAR, J. These appeals by certificate granted by the
Allahabad High Court raise the following substantial question of
law of general importance which needs to be decided by this Court :
F
"Whether the view taken by the Full Bench in. Smt. Maya v.
Raja Dulaji and others (1 ) that the lessor/landlord should not only be
disabled person on the relevant dates, but that he should continue
to live on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, within
the meaning of clauses (h) of section 21 (I) of the U.P. Zamindari
G Abolition and Land Reforms Act, represents a correct construction
.
L
of clause (h) of section 21(1) of the Act?"

The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may he stated.
One Smt. Ram Kali, widow of Tikam Singh, was the land-holder of
H the plots (agricultural land) in dispute situated in villages Agaota

(I) [1970) A.L.J. 476.
RICHPAL v. DESH RAJ (Tulzapurkar, J.) 371

and Khaiya Kbera in District Bulandsbabr (U.P.). On June 14, A
1945 Smt. Ram Kali who was a Sirdar and a 'disabled person'
falling within s. 157 (I) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act") executed a r~gis
tered deed of lease for a period of 5 years in favour of Uttam Singh
(the predecessors-in-title of the respondents) but before the expiry of
the period of 5 years she died in August, 1915 and Dan Sahai (her 8
husband's real brother and predecessors-in-title of the appellants)
inherited her interest. Dan Sahai was also a 'disabled person' within
the meaning of s. 157(1) of the Act. It seems that after the expiry
of the period of the registered lease Uttam Singh and M'irli Singlt
continued to hold the land as tenants from year to year under Dan
Sahai. In consolidation proceedings a question arose whether c
Uttam Singh and Murli Singh, who were lessees under Smt. Ram
Kali and Dan Sahai acquired the status of Sirdars or they remained
Asamis of the plots in dispute. The case of Dan Sabai was that
they were Asamis and not adhivasis en titled to be treated as Sirdars
under s. 240 B of the Act and that depended upon whether as
tenants or occupants of the plots in dispute their case fell within the 0
provisions of s. 21(1) (h) of the Act. The contention of Dan Sahai
was that since Smt. Ram Kali was a disabled person on the date
of letting and since he who succeeded her was also a disabled person
on April 2, 1946, the lease in favour of Uttam Singh and Murli
Singh would fall within section 21(1) (h) and as such Uttam Singh
and Murli Singh shall be deemed to be Asamis. On the other hand
the contention on behalf of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh was that
the land-holder should not only be a disabled person on both the
dates mentioned in sub-cl. (a) of cl. (h) of s. 21(1) (being the date of
letting as also April 9, 1946) but the same landlord should continue
to live on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting (which
is 1-7-1952 under the Act) and since in the instant case the same
F
landlord who had let out the plots and who was disabled person on
the date of letting had not continued to live on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting s. 21(1) (h) was totally inapplicable
and, therefore, they were entitled to be treated as Sirdars. The
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals
Nos. 424-425 of 1971 accepted the contention raised by counsel on
G
behalf of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh (the respondents' predeces-
sors) relying on the view taken by the Full Bench in Smt. Maya v.
Raja Dulaji and others (') and decided the appeals in their favour by
holding that they were not Asamis but had become Sirdars.
B
(1) [1970] A.L.J. 476.
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] J S.C.R.

A At the outset it may be stated that it was not disputed either
in the lower courts or before us that both Smt. Ram Kali as well as
Shri Dan Sahai who succeeded to her interest in the plots after her
death were disabled persons under s. 157 (( !) of the Act. In fact it
was accepted by both the sides that on the date of letting (being
14th June, 1945) Smt. Ram Kali. the then land holder was a disabled
B person and on 9th April, 1946 (being the other relevant date under
sub-clause (a) of clause (h) of section 21(!) Dan Sahai, the then
land-holder, was a disabled person who continued to be the land-
holder upto the date of vesting, and the question is whether in such
a case the occupation of the plots by Uttam Singh and Murli Singh
under the lease from both of them would fall within the provisions of
c s. 21(1) (h) of the Act.

The relevant provision runs thus :

"21(1) Nothwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding
D the date of vesting, occupied or held land as-

(h) a tenant of sir of land referred to in sub-clause (a)
of clause (i) of the explanation under section 16,
E a sub-tenant referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause
(a) of section 20 or an occupant referred to in
sub-clause (i) of the said section where the land·
holder or if there are more than one land-holders,
all of them were person or persons belonging-

F (a) if the land was let out or occupied prior to
the ninth day of April, 1946, both on the date
of letting or occupation, as the case may be,
and on the ninth day of April, 1946, and

(b) if the land was let out or occupied on or after
G the ninth day of April, 1946, on the date of
letting or occupation,

to any one or more of the classes mentioned in
sub-section (I) of Section 157.
H
shall be deemed to be an asami thereof."
RICHPAL v. DESHRAJ (Tulzapurkar, J.) 373

\ In other words, s. 21 (l) (h) provides tbat every person occupying or A
holding land in any one of the capacities mentioned in cl. (h) on the
date immediately preceding 1-7-1952 shall be deemed to be an Asami
thereof notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, if the land-
holder or if there are more than one all of them were disabled
persons within the meaning of s. 157(1), both on the date of letting
as well as on April 9, 1946 where the letting has taken place prior
to April, 9, 1946, or were disabled persons on the date of letting if B
the letting has occurred after April 9, 1946. In the instant case it is
not disputed that Uttam Singh and Murli Singh were on the date

-
immediately preceding the date of vesting holding or occupying the
plots in question in one or the other capacity mentioned in cl. (h);
secondly, since the letting was prior to April 9, 1946 sub-cl. (a) of
cl. (h) is attracted and it is also not disputed that on the date of c
letting the then land-holder (Smt. Ram Kali) was a disabled person
and on April 9, 1946 the then land-holder Dan Sahai, who succeeced
her, was also a disabled person under s. 157(1) of the Act. Inciden-
tally Dan Sahai continued to be the land-holder on the date
immediately preceding 1.7.1952. On these facts it seems to us clear
that all the requirements of s. 21 (I) (h) could be said to have been D
satisfied but the Division Bench relying upon the Full Bench decision
in Smt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji and athers (supra) held that Uttam
Singh and Murli Singh were not Asamis and had becoIDe Sirdars
because s. 21(1) (h) was not attracted inasmuch as in their view it
was a requirement of that provision that not merely should the land-
holder be a disabled person on both the dates mentioned in sub-cl. E
(a) of cl. (h) but the same land-holder should continue to be land-
holder on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting (i.e. the
identity of the disabled land-holder or landholders on both the dates
and the land-holder or land-holders seeking the benefit or protection
of the provision on the date immediately preceding J.7.1952 must
remain unchanged) and this requirement was not satisfied in this
F
case. The question is whether on true construction of the provision
such a requirement can be read into the said provision ?

In Smt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji and others (supra) the facts were G
that the disputed plots belonged to one Bijain and were inherited on
his death by his widow Smt. Lakshmi and when Smt. Lakshmi died
her minor unmarried daughter Kumari Maya became the land-holder.
Her elder sister Saheb Kunwar acting as her guardian executed a
registere dlease of the plots in favour of the plaintiffs (Ram Charan H
and others) on 15.10.1947 for a period of five years (a case falling
under sub-cl. (b) of cl. (b)). Later on Maya was also married to her
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 1 s.c.R.

A si,ter's husband Thakurda' who was admitted to the holding as co-
tenant with Maya, with the consent of the Zamindar in the year
1948. Thus on the date of vesting (1.7.1952) both Maya {who was
still minor and disabled person) as well as her husband Thakurdas
were the land-holders of the plots in question. The lessee plaintiffs
filed a suit in the year 1954 for a declaration that they had become
B Adhivasis of the land on the coming into force of the U.P.Z.A. and
LR. Act and had subsequently acquired Sirdari rights on th€:
pass·ng of the U.P. Act XX of 1954 The suit was decreed by both )
the Courts below and hence Maya defendant preferred a second

c
appeal to the High Court. The question raised for determination
was whether for the purposes of s. 211 I) {h) the disability of the land-
holders who were in existence on the date o vesting was material
or the disability of the land-holders who let out the land was a
deciding factor? The Court noticed that s. 21(1) {h) had been
-
introduced in the Act for the first time by U.P. Act XVI of 1953
with retrospective effect from July 1, 1952 and was later on a·mendecl )
by U.P. Act XX of 1954 and has thereafter continued in its present
D form. Section 21(1) {h), as originally enacted, in express terms
required that "the land-ho\ er or if there are more than one land-
holder all of them were person or persons belonging. both on the the
dute of letting and on the date imon•diate/y preceding the date of
vesting, to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub-s. (2)
ofs. 10 or cl. (viii) of sub-s. (I) ofs. 151". As aresultofth·~
E amendment made by Act XX of 1954 the words "both on the dat1i
of letting and on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting''
were omitted. In other words, by the amendment the requirement
that disability of the land-holder should subsist on the date imme-
diately preceding the date of vesting was deleted. The Full Bench
accepted the position that for purposes of s. 21(1) (h), in its present
F
form, the disability of the land-holder need not continue or subsist
on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and might
cease on or before the date of veeting but took the view that in the
case before it there were two land-holders on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting, namely, Smt. Maya and her husband
G Thakurdas, that a new body of '·land-holders' bad come into
existence subsequent to the date of letting and that all of them were
not land-holders who had let out the land as disabled person and,
therefore, tbe plaintiffs became Adhivasis and the defendants were not
entitled to the benefit of s. 21(1) (h) of the Act. In other words, the
u Full Bench bas been of the view that for purposes of s. 21(1) (b) it is
necessary that the land-holders on the date immediately preceding
the date of vesting must be the same persons as those who let out the
RICHPA.L v. DESH RAJ (Tulzapurkar, J.) 375

land and sufferred from disability on the date of letting, and also on A
April 9, 1946 in case the lettmg was before that date. In other words,
the identity of the land-holder or land-holders must remain unchanged
up to the date of vesting.

For reading such a requirement into the provision the Full
Bench has given two reasons : (a) that such a requirement arises on B
construction of certain words used in cl. (h) (vide .; para 17 of the
Judgment) and (b) that the protection given to a disabled land-
•• holder was intended to be a personal protection granted to the very
individual who let out the land as a disabled person and this was
warranted by a historical survey of parallel provisions contained in
the preceding Tenancy Laws in U.P. (vid?: Para 19). According to c
the Full Bench the crucial word; used in cl. (h) are "where the land-
holder or if there are m~re than one land-holder all of them were
person or persons belonging" to any one or more of the classes of
disabled persons under s. 157(1) and the Full Bench has reasoned
"the word 'are' and the word 'them· together with the word 'were'
in the aforementioned phrase clearly show that the intention D
of the Legislature was that on the date of ve;ting the 'Ian ct-holder'
should be the very person who was the land-holder on the
relevant dates, to earn the benefit of cl (h) of s. 21(1)". The Court
observed thats. 21(1) (h) could bear the interpretation suggested by
counsel for Smt. Maya only if the words 'or their predecessor-in-
interest' were added before tb.e w~rds "all of them". The Court E
has further stated that historic1l survey of the parallel provisions
contained in the preceding Tenancy Laws showed that the protection
given to a disabled person had always been in the nature of a per-
sonal protection granted to the very individual who let out the land
as a disabled land-holder and the protection ceased to be available
when the identity or personality of that land-holder is changed and F
in that behalf reliance was placed on certain provisions of the Agra
Tenancy Act, 1926 and U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. In our view
neither reason holds good for sustaining tb.e literal construction
placed upon the provision by the Full Bench.

It is true that cl. (h) contains the phrase "where the land- G
holder or if there are more than one landholder, all of them were
persons belonging" to any one or more of the classes mentioned in
s. 157(1), but for arriving at the correct interpretation of this crucial
phrase it is necessary to have regard to the definition of 'landholder'
~nd the provisions of s. 157 of the Act with which s. 21(1) (h) is H
" mter-connected.
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 1 s.c.R,

A Under s. 3(26) of the Act, the definition of 'landholder' as I
given in the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 has been adopted since the
expression is not defined in the Act. That expression has been
defined ins. 3(1 l) of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 thus :

"Landholder" means the person to whom rent is or,
8 but for a contract express or implied would be, payable."
This definition must be read in light of s. 3(1) of that Act which
runs thus: }.

"All words and expressions used to denote the posses-
sor of any right, title or interest in land, whether the same
c be proprietary or otherwise, shall be deemed to include the
predecessors and successors in right, title or interest of such
person.''

In other words, the expression 'landholder' who obviously is a )

possessor of interest in land under s. 3(11) means a person to whom
D rent is payable, and under s. 3(1) by legal fiction it shall include his
predecessor-in-interest as also successor-in-interest to whom the rent
was or is payable. It is such definition that will have to be read in
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act wherever that exression occurs. It is
thus obvious that the expression 'landholder' occurring in s. 21(1)
(h) must mean a person to whom rent is payable and by fiction
E would include his predecessor-in-interest. Read in this light there I
would be no question of adding the word predecessor-in-interest of
the land-holder in s. 21(1) (h) as that would be implicit in the term
'landholder' on account of the deeming provision of s. 3(1) read with

F
s. 3(11) ·of the Tenancy Act, 1939. It does appear that this aspect
of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Full Bench when
it construed the concerned crucial phrase. Moreover after the
amendment effected by Act XX of 1954 the thrust of cl. (h) is on the
-
landholder or landholders being disabled persons on the material
dates only.

Further s. 157(1) permits leases by disabled persons and says
G that a Bhumidhar or an Asami holding land in lieu of maintenance
allowance under s. 11, who is a disabled person falling under any
of the clauses (a) to (g), may let the whole or any part of his holding;
and the proviso thereto is very important which runs thus :

H ·'Provided that in the case of a holding held jointly by
more persons than one, but one or more of them but not
RICHPAL v. DESHRAJ (Tulzapurkar, J.) 377

' all are subject to the disabilities mentioned in clause (a) to A
(g), the person or persons may let out his or their share
in the holding."

And sub-s. (2) provides that where any share of a holding has been
let out under the aforesaid proviso the Court may on an application B
of the Asami or the tenure-holder determine the share of the lessor
in the holding and partition the same. Having regard to the afore-
said proviso under which even in the case of a joint holding a lease
of his share by a disabled land-bolder is permissible and the same
is liable to be separated by a partition it is obvious that the expres-
sion "all of them" must refer to all such land-holders who were c
disabled land-holders on the material dates. When under the
proviso to s. 157(1) a lease of his share by a disabled land-holder
in joint holding (held alongwith a non-disabled person) 1s expressly
permitted and under s. 157(2) the Court has to determine such share
of the disabled lessor and partitiou the same on an application being
made in that behalf, it is difficult to accept that the Legislature D
intended to deprive the protection of s. 21(1) (h) to such disabled
land-holder simply because on the date immediately preceding the
date of vesting such land-holder comes to hold the land jointly with
some other non-disabled land-holder. In other words on the facts
found in the Full Bench case when on the date of letting the entire
holding belonged to Smt. Maya who was a disabled person E
and on the date of vesting she alongwith her husband Thakurdas
(a non-disabled person) became joint holder, could Smt. Maya at
any rate to the extent of her share in the joint holding be denied the

- benefit of s. 21(1) (h) notwithstanding the proviso to s. 157(1) and
s. 157(2) being in the Statute? The answer is obviously in the
negative. In fact in view of the fact that on the material date (being
the date of letting) the entire holding belonged to Smt. Maya the
F
disabled person, and having regard to the deeming provision which
has to be read in the definition of 'landholder' and having regard
to the thrust of amended cl. (h) which does not require that the
successor-in-interest be a disabled person on the date of vesting, the
benefit of s. 21 (I) (h) should have been extended or made available G
in respect of the entire holding. In other words, on true c onstruc-
tion of the crucial phrase occurring in cl. (h) it is not possible to
read into the provision the additional requirement, namely, that the
identity of the land-holder or land-holders must remain unchanged
up to the date of vesting. H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

A Coming to the second reason the Full Bench has observed I
that a historical survey of parallel provisions of the Agra Tenancy
Act 1926 and U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 supported the conclusion that
protection was granted only to the very individual who Jet out the
land as a disabled land-holder and the protection ceased when the
identity of the personality of that land-holder changed and h that
8 behalf reference was made to s. 29(6) and (7) of the former Act and
s. 41 (2) of the latter Act. Now apart fr0m the fact that tb.e scheme
of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is different from these two earlier )
enactments, a careful analysis of the two provisions in the earlier
en~ctments will clearly show that in each of the provisions express
words had been used conferring personal rights on the individuals
c concerned which is not the case withs. 21(1) (b.) of the Act.

Having regard to the above discussion we are of the opm1on
that the view taken by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in
Smt. Maya v. Raja Dulaji and others (supra) does not repres(:nt the
D correct construction of s. 21(1) (h)·of the Act. On true construction
of the said provision in our view, the benefit thereof would be
available to the land-holder on the date of vesting, if the same land-
holder or his predecessor existing on the material dates was a person
or persons belonging to one or more of the classes mentioned in
s.157(1) of the Act.

Since in the instant case, which falls under sub-cl. (a) of c:l. (h),
on the date of actual letting Smt. Ram Kali was disabled person and
since on .the next material date, namely, April, 9 1946 Dan Sahai

F
(successor-in-interest of Smt. Ram Kali) was also a di sabled 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 (I) (h) and
the respondents (successors of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh) would
remain Asamis and cannot be said to have become Sirdars.
-
ll

We might mention that after the arguments in these appeals
G were concluded and our Judgment was ready for pronouncement we
were informed that in a later case Dwarika Singh v. Dy. Director of
Consolidation (') a larger Bench of 5-Judges of the Allahabad High
Court has, by majority, overruled the view taken in Smt. Maya's
case.
ff )

(1) A.W.C. 213-1981 A.L.J. 484.
RlCHPAL v. DESH RAJ (Tulzapurkar, J.) 379

In the result the appeals are allowed, the orders of the Division A
Bench in Special Appeals Nos. 424-425 of 1971 are set aside and for
reasons given by us above, the decision of the learned Single Judge
dated May 10, 1971 is restored.

We direct that each party will bear its own costs.
B
S. R. Appeals allowed.

\

>