Material facts which have led to the need to decide the said question in the present appeals, companyld be stated thus.
Smt Khema Kunwar, although impugned the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in her appeal filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and in her revision filed before the Joint Director of Consolidation, she did number succeed.
So also she did number succeed in her writ petitions filed in the matter before the High Court of Allahabad, in that a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissed those writ petitions by his companymon judgment and orders dated 4 9 1967.
1 and 6 to Harnam Singh, the appellant in CA No.
1, 6 and 1063 companytested their claim for recording them as Adhivasis of those lands in Basic Years Records.
The United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 the UPT Act when came into force on 19 1 1940 the appellants were in occupation of those plots of lands as tenants and cultivating them by paying rents to the thekedar.
142 of 1976 and Plot No.
1, 6 and 1063 among others, of Village Barai M. Khara, Pargana Ujhani, District Budaun.
It is that companymon judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court which has been impugned by Hamam Singh and Mohar Singh by filing the present appeals by special leave.
143 of 1976, on yearly rents and put them in possession of those plots in the year 1940 for their cultivation.
948 949 of the a question of somewhat importance, which arises for our decision, is as to whether a widow belonging to a class of disabled persons under Section 157 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the UPZA LR Act companyld be regarded as a landholder envisaged under Section 21 1 h respecting her Sir lands, which a thekedar under a thekanama executed by her had let out for occupation and cultivation by tenants prior to 9 4 1947 and which were allowed by the thekedar to companytinue in such occupation and cultivation on 9 8 1947, by receiving yearly rents from the tenants.
Smt Khema Kunwar, who did number dispute the fact that Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh were occupants of the Plot Nos.
But her special appeals file against the said companymon judgment and orders of the learned Single Judge before the same High Court were allowed by a companymon judgment and order dated 8 12 1972 of a Division Bench of that Court, upholding her companytention that the appellants herein were Asamis under Section 2 1 1 h of the UPZA LR Act and number Adhivasis under Section 20 1 b thereof.
In the year 1960, when Harnam Singh, who was in occupation of Plot Nos.
The Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 26 9 1961 dismissed the objection raised by Hamam Singh and Mohar Singh.
1063 to Mohar Singh, the appellant in CA No.
1 and 6 and Mohar Singh, who was in occupation of Plot No.
1063, from the year 1940 paying annual rents as tenants to thekedar, Ganga Singh, found that they were shown as Asamis in respect of the said plots in the Basic Years Records, they filed objections under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the UPCH Act before tile jurisdictional Consolidation Officer, claiming that they should be shown in Basic Years Records as Adhivasis respecting plots in their occupation.
That order, when was carried in appeals by Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh before the Assistant Settlement Officer, their claim for recording their names in the Basic Years Records as Adhivasis was upheld by his Judgment and order dated 13 6 1963.
That on 12 12 1939, she executed a thekanama in favour of one Ganga Singh, by which he was put in physical possession of the said Sir lands, enabling him as a thekedar number only to cultivate those lands personally for over a period of twenty years subject to payment to her theka money of Rs 355 per annum, but also to lease them for cultivation to tenants and receive annual rents from them during that period.
Ever since the thekedar received yearly rents from Harnam Singh and Mohar Singh, as they were his tenants or lessees.
That on 18 11 1933, Smt Khema Kunwar, Respondent 1 in these appeals, as the widow of Nathu Singh succeeded to his Sir lands Plot Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. In these appeals by special leave directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 8 12 1972 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, rendered in Special Appeal Nos.
No sooner Ganga Singh got possession of the said Sir lands under the thekanama from Smt Khema Kunwar, he as thekedar, leased Plot Nos.
