DHARAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. versus PREM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. on 5 February 2019

DHARAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

v.

PREM SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

(Civil Appeal No. 516 of 2009)FEBRUARY 05, 2019

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]

Suit:

Suit for permanent injunction – On the basis of Sirdari rightsin favour of their predecessor-in-interest in respect of suit property(i.e. Plot No. 719) – Case of defendants was that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff being the caretaker of the property of originalowner was in possession of her entire property including the suitproperty after the death of the original owner – Entire propertyincluding the suit property was escheated to the State as the originalowner died leaving no heir – Collector ordered for release of theproperty of the original owner from the possession of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff – However, he was allowed to remain inpossession of the land to the extent of 4 Nali – Predecessor-in-interest handed over the possession of the entire land of originalowner except 4 Nali 1 Muthi to the State – Defendants were give thesuit property in exchange of their property which was acquired bythe State – During the record operations, predecessor-in-interest ofthe property was shown in possession of the plots which wasescheated to the State – Assistant Record Officer passed an orderdirecting deletion of the name of predecessor-in-interest from therecord on the basis of a report that the name was recordedsurreptitiously by the record officials – Despite that the name ofpredecessor-in-interest continued in the record as occupant of theland – Pursuant to Zamindari Abolition Act, Patwari made entry inthe Khata/Khatauni giving status of Asami and right of Sirdar to thepredecessor-in-interest of plaintiff – Trial Court decreed the suit –High Court in appeal, dismissed the suit – On appeal, held: In viewof order of the Assistant Record Officer directing deletion of thename of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff as occupant ofthe land, he could not have been held to be recorded occupantwithin meaning of s. 10(e) of Zamindari Abolition Act – Hence,

13

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AAsami rights could not have been obtained and consequently hecould not have been treated as Sirdar – Patwari was also not acompetent authority to make such entry in Khata Khatauni – It isproved that the land of the original owner was escheated to theState; the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had released theland from his possession and that the suit land was given by theBState to the defendants in exchange – Hence, claim of plaintiff byvirtue of entry made by Patwari cannot be accepted – Suit is liableto be dismissed – Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolitionand Land Reforms Act, 1960 – s. 10 (e).

Dismissing the appeal, the CourtC

HELD:1. Asami/Sirdari right on Plot No.719 in the suit wasclaimed on the ground that the father of the appellant(predecessor-in-interest) was recorded in possession. Plot No.719along with other plots was recorded in the name of the originalowner, last tenure holder. The original owner having died without Dleaving any legal heirs, her land escheated to State. The Collectorhas also passed an order for taking possession of land of theoriginal owner from the possession of the father of the appellantexcept leaving four Nali one Muthi land in his possession. Adocument dated 14.05.1956 was recorded in this respect whichwas signed by the father of appellant. Plot No.719 was not includedEin four Nali which was left with the father of appellant. [Para 6][22-C-D]

2. The right of the father of the appellant was sought to beclaimed in accordance with Section 10 sub-clause (e) of theKumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land ReformsFAct, 1960. For acquiring right under Section 10 sub-clause (e) ithas to be established that person claiming Asami right wasrecorded as occupant of land. The High Court in its judgmentnoticed that the record operation in the village in question wasundertaken between the period from 1952 to 1963. In the record

operation it was noticed that the name of the father of the appellantGwas recorded in possession on some plots including Plot No.719.A report was submitted that the name of the father of the appellanthad been recorded surreptitiously by the Record OperationOfficials. The report further mentioned that possession of landhas already been taken over and handed over to the Malguzar.H[Paras 7, 8][22-E; 23-B-D]

3. The statute confers Asami right to a person recorded asoccupant in the last revision of records which were undertakenbetween 1952 to 1962. In the said revision order was passeddeleting the name of the father of the appellant from the recordwhich is a fact not disputed by any of the parties. When in a record,operation order is passed for deleting the name of the father ofthe appellant from possession over the land in question, he cannotbe held to be recorded occupant within the meaning of Section10(e) of 1960 Act. [Para 11][24-E-F]

4. The order of Assistant Record Officer directing thedeletion of the name of the father of the appellant was passed onthe report of Record Operation Officials in which report it wasmentioned that the name of the father of the appellant has beensurreptitiously recorded. The report was accepted and thedirection was issued to delete the name. Thus, Asami right couldnot have been obtained by the father of the appellant.[Para 13][29-C]

5. As per the provisions of the Act, 1960 those personswho had acquired Asami right under the Act were treated to beSirdar w.e.f. 1[st] January, 1974. The father of the appellant beingnot recorded occupant, when could not acquire Asami right, noquestion arises of he getting Sirdari right. More so entry madeby Patwari was not consequent to any order passed by anycompetent officer. Patwari (Lekhpal) was not authorised to enterthe name of any person or confer any right. Lekhpal (Patwari)was not entitled to make entry in Khata Khatauni of 1379-1385.No right was acquired on the strength of the aforesaid entry. [Para15][25-F-H]

6. Land of various persons was acquired for constructionof Government buildings in which one of the persons whose landwas acquired was the predecessor-in-interest of respondent. TheGovernment utilised the land of the original owner which wasescheated to State by giving the said land in exchange to thosepersons whose land was acquired. The order pertaining toexchange is dated 05.09.1960 which was brought on the recordas Annexure-P4. In the said order it was noticed that father ofthe appellant was in possession of Plot No.719. Plot No.719 wasgiven in exchange to person whose land was acquired by the State.The High Court has also relied on the document paper No.23

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2019] 3 S.C.R.

AGa/2 which was written on 14.05.1956 in which it is indicated thatfather of appellant has handed over the possession of the entireland of the original owner except four Nali. [Paras 16, 17][26-A-D]

7. Father of appellant himself clearly stated that the land ofBthe original owner which is escheated to the State will be releasedfrom his possession and he shall not interfere and he shall be inpossession of only four Nali which has been given to him. PlotNo.719 was not given to him and was not included in the said fourNali land which was left with him. This makes it clear that hecould not claim any right on Plot No.719 belonging to the originalCowner which was escheated to the State and was given in exchangeto predecessor-in-interest of the defendant on 05.09.1960. Theclaim of the plaintiff that by virtue of entry made by Patwari, hebecame Sirdar, cannot be accepted. [Para 18][26-F-H]

Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and othersD(1976) 3 SCC 642 : [1976] Suppl. SCR 519 – reliedon.

Case Law Reference

[1976] Suppl. SCR 519relied onPara 12

ECIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 516 of2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2006 of the High Courtof Uttaranchal at Nainital in First Appeal No. 912 of 2001.

A.S. Rawat, Sr. Adv., Sheikh Imran Alam, Raj Singh Rana,FAdvs. for the Appellants.

Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Manu Singh, Jaigop Bangama, Advs.for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1.This appeal has been filedchallenging the judgment dated 28.07.2006 of High Court of Uttarakhandby the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in suit No. 9 of 1992. TheHigh Court by its judgment has allowed the first appeal filed by thedefendants-respondents setting aside the judgment and decree dated13.08.1996 of the District Judge in Suit No. 9 of 1992.H

2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for decidingthis appeal are:

2.1 One Badri Aswal was the owner of agricultural land in Khata/Khatauni No. 46 of Village Gyansu, District Uttar Kashi (earlierpart of Tehri Garhwal) measuring a total of 62 Nali and 1 muthi.The said Badri had no issue. He married one Tulsa Devi. It isclaimed that Tulsa Devi adopted one Bhopalu as her son afterdeath of her husband but Bhopalu’s name could never bemutated in the Revenue records. Tulsa Devi died much beforeindependence. One Amar Singh, predecessor-in-interest ofappellants claimed to be looking after the affairs of Bhopaluand paying land revenue on his behalf. Bhopalu also died beforeindependence and after death of Bhopalu, Amar Singhcontinued to be in possession of land belonging to Tulsa Devi.Tulsa Devi’s name continued in revenue records. Amar Singhclaimed to be in possession of the land. According to law aswas in force in Tehri Garhwal at that time that when a tenant/owner dies without an heir, the land is escheated to State. Forthe reason, Tulsa Devi died without an heir, the entire land wastreated to be State property.

2.2 The Collector, Tehri Garhwal passed an order on 17.04.1956and ordered that property of Tulsa Devi be got released fromthe possession of Amar Singh. However, Amar Singh wasallowed to remain in possession of the land where his house,Gaushala and Sagwara was situated with the condition thattotal areas shall not exceed 4 Nali. A document was writtenon 14.05.1956 (paper No.23Gha/2) which recorded that AmarSingh has handed over possession of the entire land of TulsaDevi except 4 Nali 1 muthi. The plots covering that area of 4Nali and 1 muthi was also mentioned in the said document.The Government required land for construction of buildingsfor District Uttar Kashi, with regard to which land in VillageGyansu was acquired. Instead of paying compensation totenure holders whose land was acquired, the Governmentordered to give land in exchange of the land, which earlier wasrecorded in the name of Tulsa Devi, which stood escheated tothe State. An exchange document was recorded in this contextwhere various plots were given in exchange to different tenant ABC

D

EF

G

H

Aholders whose land was acquired. The record operations inthe village in question continued from 1952 to 1963 (as hasbeen noted by the High Court).

2.3 The name of Amar Singh was shown in possession with regardto few plots, which were the plots recorded in the name ofBTulsa Devi. The A.R.O. passed an order dated 06.05.1961directing that name of Amar Singh, who was recorded inpossession be deleted. The said order was based on a reportthat name of Amar Singh has been recorded surreptitiously bythe record officials.

C2.4 In area where the land in question was situated, the Kumaonand Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1960 (hereinafter referred to as “1960 Act”) was enforced.In accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act, Section 10provides that every person who on the date immediatelypreceding the appointed date was recorded as occupants ofDland held by a hissedar or a khaikar was held to be asamis.The Patwari of the village referring to a Government orderdated 19.12.1973 made an entry in Khata/Khatauni firstly inthe Fasli year 1979-1985 making entries as per the aboveGovernment order. The status of asamis w.e.f. 01.01.1974Eand right of sirdar of Khasra No. 641, 719 and 697 was enteredagainst the name of Amar Singh by the Patwari. Amar Singhdied in or about the Year 1985. The appellants, who are sonsof Lt. Amar Singh filed Civil Suit No. 9 of 1992 against thedefendants-respondents praying for permanent injunction.Following reliefs were claimed in para No. 11 of the plaint:-F

a) to pass a permanent injunction restraining the defendant hisfamily members, agents and labourers from forceful,fraudulent interference in the land in Khata Khatoni No.195/35-K field No.719 admeasuring 2 Nali, 11 Muthi land ofvillage Gyansu, Patti Barahat, Uttarkashi;G

b) the cost of the case be awarded in favour of the plaintiffsand against the defendant, as this Hon’ble Court deems fitand proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.5 The case of the plaintiff was that father of plaintiff got sirdarirights w.e.f. 01.01.1974. Father of the plaintiffs remained inH

possession till his death and thereafter the appellants are inpossession of plot No. 719 area – 2 Nali and 1 muthi on whichthey have shown mustard crops. It was pleaded that on27.11.1991, the defendants damaged the mustard crops.Consequently, the suit was filed.

2.6 The defendants in their written statements denied the plaintallegations. Defendants’ case was that plot No. 719 and otherplots were recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi, who died beforethe present settlement leaving no heir, therefore, the propertiesof Tulsa Devi escheated to State and vested in the State ofUttar Pradesh. In the year 1956-57, State needed the propertiesin Mauza Barahat for construction of PWD houses, theGovernment acquired property but instead of payingcompensation, the owners were given plots of Tulsa Devi inexchange. The grandfather of defendant Mor Singh wasMaurusidar, who was owner of plot No. 611 area of 3 Nali 2muthi, which was acquired by the State and in exchange ofsaid plots Mor Singh was given plot Nos. 366,335, 336 and 364corresponding to new Plot Nos. 641, 719 and 657. After thedeath of Mor Singh, partition took place and the plots came inthe kura of Narain Singh, father of the defendants.

2.7 Narain Singh partitioned the property and since 24.03.1969, itis the defendants, who are the owners of the plot. NarainSingh died in 1974. It was pleaded that District Magistrate,Tehri Garhwal ordered that the property of Tulsa Devi be gotreleased from the possession of Amar Singh and allowed himto own only 4 Nali 1 muthi land. The land, which was left withAmar Singh did not include Plot No. 719 and with connivanceof revenue officials, he got forged entries made with regard toPlot No. 719 and 641. It was alleged that at the presentsettlement, the Assistant Record officer ordered for strikingoff the name of Amar Singh by order dated 06.05.1961 buteven after directing for deletion of his name from Plot No.641, 749, it continued in the Revenue records on the basis ofwhich Amar Singh claimed that he has become sirdar.

2.8 It was alleged that plaintiffs are not in possession of the plotNos. 641 and 719 and it is the defendants, who are in possessionand the suit is liable to be dismissed.

A

BCD

EFG

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A2.9 Trial court framed several issues and by order dated 13.08.1996decreed the suit for injunction of the plaintiffs. Trial courtfurther noticed that an order was passed by the AssistantRecord Officer and in the order, he directed for deletion of thename of Amar Singh, the order was only in papers and thereis no proof, which has been filed on the record to prove thatBactual possession of the plot was taken from Amar Singh.Consequently, the entries of possession continued in favour ofAmar Singh.

2.10 With regard to the case of the defendants that possessionwas taken from Amar Singh of the plot belonging to Tulsa DeviCand in exchange the plot No. 719 was given to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, the trial court held that even thoughdocument 23C indicate that plots were taken from Amar Singhand given in supurdagi of Malguzar but there is no proof thatactual possession was taken from Amar Singh. The entries inDthe name of Amar Singh cannot be held to be forged (farzi).

2.11 The defendants aggrieved by the judgment of trial court dated13.08.1996 filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Courtvide its judgment dated 28.07.2006 has allowed the first appealand set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 13.08.1996.EHigh Court held that in the record operation, there being orderpassed by Assistant Record Officer in the year 1961 directingthe deletion of entry in the name of Amar Singh, no right canbe claimed by Amar Singh on the basis of such possessionentry. High Court further held that the entry made by thePatwari(Lekhpal) in 1379-1385 Fasli, that Amar Singh hasFbecome asamis and sirdar was without authority.Patwari(Lekhpal) was not competent to declare asami/sirdarirights and it was only Assistant Collector, who could havepassed any such order. No order having been passed by thecompetent authority giving asamis/sirdari rights to Amar Singh,Gon the strength of unauthorised entry made by Patwari, AmarSingh cannot claim any right.

2.12 High Court further noticed that Amar Singh himself in hisstatement, as has been extracted, in the document dated14.05.1956, admitted to release the land of Tulsa Devi fromHhis possession except area of 4 Nali, which was given to him under the order of Collector, Tehri Garhwal, where his house,Gaushala and Sagwara were situated. Amar Singh thereaftercannot claim possession or right with regard to any land exceptthose 4 Nalis land, which was given to him in the year 1956.

2.13 High Court held that although correctness of entries in therevenue records cannot be challenged but entries are open toattack on the ground that it was made fraudulentlyorsurreptitiously. High Court held that defendants’ case isfortified by the document 21-Ga, which indicate that the landin question had been given in exchange to the predecessor ofdefendants. On the aforesaid findings, the appeal was allowedsetting aside the judgment of the trial court. The appellantsaggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up inthis appeal.

3. Shri A.S. Rawat, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellants contends that High Court erred in setting aside the decree oftrial court. He submits that Amar Singh’s name being recorded in therevenue records as in possession of plot in question, he become asamisby virtue of provisions of 1960 Act and the entry made by Patwari inKhasra“1979-1385” was on the strength of statutory provision andGovernment order issued therein. He submits that Amar Singh was neverdispossessed from plot in question. He submits that the plot No. 719being a very small piece of land measuring 2 Nali 1 muthi land, whichwas in possession of Amar Singh, the trial court has correctly decreedthe suit holding the Amar Singh to have become asamis/sirdars andbhumidars. He submits that entry made in favour of Amar Singh asasamis cannot be held to be forged.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submissionsof the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the plot in questionwas given in exchange to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondentsin lieu of acquisition of land of predecessor-in-interest. It is submittedthat in the exchange, plot No.719 – 2 Nali 1 muthi was given to thedefendants, which is reflected in records, Amar Singh had no right toclaim the land, which was recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi. TulsaDevi having died issueless, the entire land was escheated to State. Hesubmits that entry of possession in the name of Amar Singh was directedto be deleted by competent officer in the record operation. On the merefact that name continued on record no rights can be claimed by Amar A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASingh thereafter. There are material on record where Amar Singh himselfadmitted that he has handed over the possession of all plots including719 except 4 Nali 1 muthi land, which was permitted to be retained byhim. The appellants name not being recorded as occupants, he cannotclaim any rights under Section 10 of the 1960 Act. learned counsel forthe respondent submits that High Court has rightly allowed the appeal.B5. We have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Amar Singh, the father of the appellant, claimed Asami/Sirdariright on Plot No.719 in the suit on the ground that he was recorded inpossession. We have already noticed above that Plot No.719 along withCother plots was recorded in the name of Smt. Tulsa Devi, last tenureholder. Smt. Tulsa Devi having died without leaving any legal heirs herland escheated to State. The Collector has also passed an order fortaking possession of land of Smt. Tulsa Devi from the possession ofAmar Singh except leaving 4 Nali one Muthi land in the possession ofDAmar Singh. A document dated 14.05.1956 was recorded in this respectwhich was signed by Amar Singh. Plot No.719 was not included in 4Nali which was left with Amar Singh.

7. The right of Amar Singh was sought to be claimed in accordancewith Section 10 sub-clause (e) of the Act, 1960. Section 10 of the Act isas follows:E

“Section 10. Sirtans to be Asamis.—Every person who, on thedate immediately preceding the appointed date, was- (a) a sirtan holding from aissedar; or (b) a sirtan holding from a khaikar; orF(c) a mortgagee in actual possession of land mentioned in Section8; or (d) a lessee of the rights of a hissedar in non-khaikari land and alessee or sub-lessee mentioned in Section 34 of the Tehri-Garhwal Bhumi-Sambandhi Adhikar Niyams, 1941 of the rightsGof a khaikar or those of a maurusidar in non-khaikari land havingany land in his personal cultivation as such; or (e) recorded as occupant of land held by a hissedar or a khaikaras such in the last revision of records made under Chapter IVof the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901; H

shall be called asami of the land and shall, subject to the provisionsof this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof.”

8. Every person, who on the date immediately preceding theappointed date, was recorded as occupant of the land held by a hissedaror a khaikar as such in the last revision of records made under ChapterIV of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall be called Asami of landand entitled to take or retain possession thereof. For acquiring right underSection 10 sub-clause (e) it has to be established that person claimingAsami right was recorded as occupant of land. The High Court in itsjudgment noticed that the record operation in village in question wasundertaken between the period from 1952 to 1963. In the record operationit was noticed that the name of Amar Singh was recorded in possessionon some plots including Plot No.719. A report was submitted that thename of Amar Singh had been recorded surreptitiously by the RecordOperation Officials. The report further mentioned that possession ofland has already been taken over and handed over to the Malguzar. TheAssistant Record Officer passed an order dated 01.05.1963 Englishtranslation of which order has been extracted by the High Court whichis to the following effect:

“The new No.719 showing Amar Singh. The Amin has shownforged entries as is evident from the report of S.N.T. dated06.05.1961. For the time being delete the possession from thesenumbers and enter into the Maurusi record of the deceased.” Itwas further directed that the revenue record may be correctedaccordingly. In pursuance of the said order the settlement recordwas corrected and that document is paper No.23 Ga/2 on record.”

9. When during record operation competent authority has passedan order for deleting the name of Amar Singh from possession whetherAmar Singh can be still treated as recorded occupant in the record so asto acquire benefit of Asami is the question to be answered.

10. The trial court in its order decreeing the suit has noticed theorder of A.R.O. directing for deletion the name of Amar Singh fromrecord. The trial court, however, has observed that the order passed bythe A.R.O. having not given effect in the record and name of AmarSingh having continued in the record he is entitled to be treated as Sirdar.The trial court in the above context has made following observation in itsjudgment:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“Ex.1 is the copy of order of A.R.O. in present settlement bywhich he had passed order for striking the name of Amar Singhfrom some of the plots but again there is nothing on record toshow that this order was complied with. The learned counsel forthe defendant contended that paper No.18-C is another copy ofpaper No.12-Ka(Ex.1) which shows that Amar Singh was presentBat the time of order. However, the presence of Amar Singh andhis signature on the said order does not prove that Amar Singhdelivered possessions of the said plots and further as earlier statedthat Smt. Tulasa was not alive and possession could not be deliveredto her, therefore, even if the entries were held forged in 1961 andCin spite of the order the entries were not corrected by the revenueauthorities, this could not be held as forgery and fraud on the partof plaintiff or his father and further even there was no evidencethat in compliance of the order Amar Singh was ever dispossessedand in spite of the said orders, Amar Singh was in actual possessionand, therefore, he was recorded as Sirdar on the basis of actualDpossession.”

11. The statute confers Asami right to a person recorded asoccupant in the last revision of records which were undertaken between1952 to 1962. In the said revision order was passed deleting the name ofAmar Singh from the record which is a fact not disputed by any of theEparties. The trial court decreed the suit observing that even if the orderwas passed there was nothing on record to show that said order ofA.R.O. was complied. The trial court further held that it is not provedthat Amar Singh was even dispossessed in spite of the order passed bythe A.R.O. The statute conferred the benefit on a person recorded asFoccupant. When in a record operation order is passed for deleting thename of Amar Singh from possession over the land in question, AmarSingh cannot be held to be recorded occupant within the meaning ofSection 10(e).

12. The High Court has dealt with the above aspect of the matterGand has held that continuation of entry after the order of deletion of thename of Amar Singh cannot confer any right. The judgment of this Courtin Vishwa Vijay Bharati vs. Fakhrul Hassan and others, (1976) 3SCC 642, has rightly been referred to and relied by the High court. ThisCourt in paragraph 14 of the judgment was laid down following:

H

“14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally,to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embarkupon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But thepresumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forgedor fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real.The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness ofwhat the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is opento the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraudand forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot founda claim to possessory title.”

13. The order of A.R.O. directing the deletion of the name ofAmar Singh was passed on the report of Record Operation Officials inwhich report it was mentioned that the name of Amar Singh has beensurreptitiously recorded. The report was accepted and the direction wasissued to delete the name. We, thus, are of the clear opinion that Asamiright could not have been obtained by Amar Singh.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed much emphasison the entry made by Patwari in 1379-1385, Annexure-P/8. The entrymade by Patwari with respect to Amar Singh is as follows:

“The Government order No.291/1-4(3)/73 Revenue dated 19.12.73a status Aasami w.e.f. 1 January, 1974 and right of Sirdar ofKhasara No.641, 719, 720 total 6 Nali 10 Muthi at the rate ofRs.3.15 per annuam.

Sd/- Illegible

Patwari.”

15. As per the provisions of the Act, 1960 those persons who hadacquired Asami right under the Act were treated to be Sirdar w.e.f. 1[st]January, 1974. The entry made by Patwari as noted above is to theabove effect. Amar Singh being not recorded occupant, when could notacquire Asami right no question arises of he getting Sirdari right. Moreso entry made by Patwari as clear from the entry itself, as noted above,was not consequent to any order passed by any competent officer. Patwari(Lekhpal) was not authorised to enter the name of any person or conferany right. The High Court has held that Lekhpal (Patwari) was not entitledto make entry in Khata Khatauni of 1379-1385. We fully endorse theaforesaid view of the High court; no right was acquired on the strengthof the aforesaid entry.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A16. One more aspect of the matter further needs to be noted. Asnoted above, land of various persons was acquired for construction ofGovernment buildings in which one of the persons whose land wasacquired was Mor Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent. TheGovernment utilised the land of Tulsa Devi which was escheated toState by giving the said land in exchange to those persons whose landBwas acquired. The order pertaining to exchange is dated 05.09.1960which was brought on the record as Annexure-P4. In the said order itwas noticed that Amar Singh was in possession of Plot No.719. PlotNo.719 was given in exchange to person whose land was acquired bythe State.C

17. The High Court has also relied on the document paper No.23Ga/2 which was written on 14.05.1956 in which it is indicated that AmarSingh has handed over the possession of the entire land of Smt. TulsaDevi except 4 Nali. In paragraph 17 of the judgment of the High Courtthe statement of Amar Singh has been noted to the following effect:

D“17. “I Amar Singh, adopted son of Bhopalu, Village Gyansu, PattiBrahat, state that the escheat land of Maurasi Tulsa, which is inmy possession, will be released from my possession and I will notinterfere in that land from today onwards and I will be in possessionof the land which is ordered to be given to me for the purpose ofEGoshala, Courtyard, Sagwara and for Water Ponds. The numberof those Plots are Plot No.339 Sagwara, 240 Goishala, 244 House,245, 246 Sagwara, 247, 248, 249 Sagwara and 619 Ka which is 1Nali 15 Muthi and total area of 4 Nali which has been given tome.”

F18. Amar Singh himself clearly stated that the land of Tulsa Deviwhich is escheated to the State will be released from his possession andhe shall not interfere and he shall be in possession of only 4 Nali whichhas been given to him. Plot No.719 was not given to him and was notincluded in the said 4 Nali land which was left with him. This makes itclear that he could not claim any right on Plot No.719 belonging to TulsaGDevi which was escheated to the State and was given in exchange topredecessor-in-interest of the defendant on 05.09.1960. The claim ofthe plaintiff that by virtue of entry made by Patwari as noted above, hebecame Sirdar cannot be accepted. The High Court after consideringentire evidence on record has rightly set aside the order passed by theTrial Court.H

19. We do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court.There being no merit in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H