The sole foundation of the appellants claim is an entry which appears in the Khasra of 1356F, which is to the following effects Ram Adhar Pandey Bakasht Waris Baqa biz Smt.
The appellant then brought the present suit, treated as one under section 20 b read with section 232 of the Act.
Patraji Motwaffi Bewa Ram Adhar Panedy Tarikh 24 2 49 Se, that is to say Ram Adhar Pande in cultivation heir in possession Smt.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Respondents carried an appeal against the decision of the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue but that appeal was dismissed.
This is an appeal by special leave against that decision.
In the meanwhile, the Act had companye into force on July 1, 1952.
344 of 1956 against the judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine on October 31, 1956.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit but the Additional ,Commissioner allowed Patirajis appeal and decreed her suit.
Special Appeal No.
He held that the entry in favour of the appellant appeared in the Khasra of 1356F for a part of the year only and therefore she was number entiled to the Adhivasi rights.
Jagdish Swarup and R. K. Bhatt, for the appellant.
The respondents then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, which was allowed by a learned single Judge ,of that companyrt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
One Ram Adhar and the respondents were companytenants of certain lands situated at Bibiganj, District Sultanpur.
On the death of Ram Adhar on February 24, 1949 the appellant took proceedings under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for a declaration that she was the widow of Ram Adhar and as such, had become a companyenant along with the respondents.
1324 of 1967.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The question which arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the appellant Patiraji is entitled to the Adhivasi rights under section 20 b i of the P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the Act .
344 of 1966.
B. Agarwala and C. P. Lal, for the respondents.
The case of the appellant is that her name was recorded as an occupant in the Khasra of 1356F, that she has therefore become an Adhivasi under section 20 74 i and is companysequently entitled to possession of the lands, from which she was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondents.
The judgment of the Board of Revenue is dated July 1, 1954.
The appellant succeeded before the Assistant Collector but in appeal, the Additional Commissioner and then the Board of Revenue took a companytrary view, holding that the appellant was number the widow of Ram Adhar.
