owned Corporation and the plots in question are in their possession since then.
Further the Patta is dated 16.4.1966 and the receipt of deposit of ten times is dated 2.7.67.
Further the interest shown by the Pradhan Shri Het Ram in support of the claim of Dewa Ram itself raises strong presumption in favour of this allegation of alleged close relationship.
The plots were surrounded on all sides by the other land of the Sugar Mill.
This as discussed above the lease deed in favour of Dewa Ram is number entitled to get his name mutated on the basis of lease deed in question.
The Bill as passed by the Council was returned to the Assembly, which accepted the amendments on 26th December, 1950.
Seth Inder Sain transferred the Mill to Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mill and thereafter, as pointed out above, it was taken over by the appellant which is a Govt.
Not only this he is number even agricultural labourer.
This appears to be a manipulation and also companylusion with the village Pradhan.
Proceedings initiated under Section 198 2 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act for cancellation of the lease in favour of the respondent were initiated and withdrawn without there being any numberice ever issued to the Sugar Mill.
It was also found that respondent was number in possession over any portion of the land in dispute.
After remand, the Deputy Director Consolidation , by judgment dated 31.3.1975, reversed the earlier judgments passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation , and held that Dewa Ram, in whose favour a lease of the above plots was executed by the Land Management Committee, had become Sirdar of those plots and his name may be recorded as such in the Revenue records.
On the companymencement of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Dewa Ram, predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 5, who shall hereinafter be referred to as respondent, filed objections claiming Sirdari rights over the plots referred to above on the basis of a lease executed in his favour on 18.4.1966 by the Chairman, Land Management Committee, who was also the Pradhan of the village.
It was on this question that the High Court had remanded the matter to the Deputy Director Consolidation for companysideration of the Revision on merits.
In the circumstances, the reliance placed by the Deputy Director on the interim order passed by the High Court in that petition for recording a finding that respondent was in possession over those plots, was wholly out of place.
An appeal filed against that decision was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation , Meerut, by judgment dated 25.11.1969 and the Revision filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the above judgment by respondent Dewa Ram, who is number represented by respondents 2 to 5, was dismissed on the ground that the certified companyy of the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation , as required by Rule 111 1 of the Rules made under the Act, had number been filed with the memo of revision.
The learned C.O. has made a spot inspection and his inspection memo dated 8.12.1968 is on file.
As is clear from the evidence on record and as has also been held by the learned C.O. the Chairman of the L.M.C. was his relation and the lease executed in his favour was companylusive one, there is numberevidence on record to establish that the appellant is a landless person and the claim of other landless persons of the village were companysidered by the village Pradhan and M.C. Besides the alleged lease deed is dated 16.4.1966 while the receipt for payment of ten times rent produced by the appellant is dated 2.7.67.
A writ petition filed thereafter by the appellant in the Allahabad High Court was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 28.7.1989.
But the High Court, in a writ petition which was thereafter filed by Dewa Ram, set aside the judgment passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation , on 1.11.1973 and remanded the case to the Deputy Director Consolidation for a fresh decision on merits.
Thus the appellant Deva Ram companyld number be mutated as Sirdar of the disputed land on the basis of illegal, and companylusive lease executed in his favour and his claim has been rightly rejected by the C.O. his appeal has numberforce and is liable to be dismissed.
What is very important in this case is that as revealed by my spot inspection also plot No.
These findings were affirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment dated 25.11.1969.
Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mills, which has since been taken over by the appellant, also filed objections claiming Sirdari rights over those plots over which there existed their storage tank for molasses and a tank for sullage water.
1366, 1367, 1368 are proved to be area appurtenant to the building of Jaswasnt Sugar Mills and its residential companyony and is in possession and was of the Mill for the purposes of storing of sheera, sullage water, refuse etc.
This also shows clear companylusion of the Pradhan with said Dewa Ram.
But since number cultivatory possession of the Mill is proved over land in dispute numbersirdari rights accrues to the Mill over the land in dispute.
The objections of the Mill were allowed by the Consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer Consolidation , but were rejected by the Deputy Director Consolidation and the High Court.
as mentioned above.
The Consolidation Officer had disposed of the objections filed by the respondent as also by the appellant with the following findings The lease deed in question in favour of plaintiff Dewa Ram is proved by companylusive and illegal on more than one ground first the allegation of the other party that said leases Dewa Ram is close relation of Pradhan Het Ram stands proved by the Statement of Dewa Ram and Pradhan Het Ram themsleves as both have given evasive answers on the facts of their relationship such as Dewa Ram even companyld number tell the name of his grand father and brother of his father.
Thus, the question of possession was number in issue before the High Court and the High Court was number required to record a finding whether respondent or the appellant was in possession over the plots in question.
Further Dewa Ram admittedly has got as source of cultivation.
1366 a pucca well built tank for storing sheera exist which seems to be quite old.
Thus numberdoubt the land of disputed plot Nos.
The objectors Jaswant Sugar Mills thus can at best claim rights u s 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and Protection of Sec.
1366, 1367 and 1368 old situate in Village Maliyana, District Meerut, was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut, in favour of the appellant by his judgment and order dated 19.4.1969.
The Act was enforced with effect from July 1, 1952 when a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the U.P. Gazette Extra Ordinary of the even date.
For this purpose, he relied upon an interim order passed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition to the effect that the possession of the respondent would number be disturbed.
This is also strong proof of the fact that the transaction has been done afterwards simply to legalise the patta.
7 1 of the said Act which protects the rights of Bhumidharis and Sirdaris is companytinue to enjoy the easement or any similar rights for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land as he was enjoying on the dates immediately preceding the date of vesting.
He too had number found the appellant to be in cultivatory possession of these plots which were in was by others for other than agricultural purposes.
Thirdly the original Gram Samaj agenda book summoned in the companyrt shows that name of the plots in dispute are in different ink.
It was presented to the Legislative Council on 6th September, 1950, which passed it on 30th November, 1950, with certain amendments.
In fact the land has got special companymercial value and the Pradhan in companylusion with Dewa Ram has executed this leasedeed simply to gain this property.
On the basis of these facts, it was pleaded before the Consolidation Officer that since the plots were being used for storage of molasses and sullage water and also as appurtenant land for better enjoyment of the other property of the Mill, they never vested in the State on the abolition of Zamindari by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
The plots thus can hardly be said to be vacant land and cannot be utilised for agricultural purpose and lessee Deva Ram can hardly be expected to carry on cultivation over this land.
The Deputy Director Consolidation did number advert himself to the vital facts that the land companytained the storage tanks for molasses and sullage water and other purposes companynected with the sugar industry number did he companysider that the plots were the land appurtenant to the staff quarters of the Mill.
Further findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer are as follows But Jaswant Sugar Mills was entered to be in possession since before Zamindari abolition.
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has companytended that the lease executed in favour of respondent by the Chairman, Land Management Committee, on the basis of which Sirdari rights were claimed by him, was wholly fictitious as it was found as a fact by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation that the Chairman of the Land Management Committee was a close relation of the respondent who was also number an agricultural labourer number had he any source of cultivation.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The dispute, which pertained to Plot Nos.
Not only this in plot No.
Lastly, the lessee Dewa Ram is number at all prove to be in possession over the land in dispute.
The benefit of Section 7 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act, which was extended by the Consolidation Officer was also number adverted to by the Deputy Director Consolidation .
These findings have number been disturbed by the Deputy Director Consolidation who decided the Revision on 31.3.1975 with the finding that the lease executed in favour of the respondent under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act was valid, inasmuch as a numberice issued under Section 198 2 of that Act by the Sub Divisional Officer was subsequently withdrawn and the proceedings for cancellation of lease initiated on the basis of that numberice were also withdrawn.
These plots were found by the Consolidation Officer, on a local inspection, to companytain the storage tank for molasses.
1366, 1367 and 1368 were found to be in was partly for storing Sheera by Jaswant Sugar Mills and partly for throwing sullage water and spent wash of the adjacent factory for which several drains exists on spot as shown in the spot memo also.
The Assembly took up the companysideration of the Bill on 16th January, 1950, when its first reading took place, and was ultimately passed on 4th August, 1950.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded the following findings I find that the lease executed in his favour was number legal and according to rules.
The finding on the question of possession was recorded by the Deputy Director in favour of the respondent because of the interim order passed by the High Court in the first writ petition in which the only question raised by the respondent was that his Revision filed before the Deputy Director Consolidation companyld number have been dismissed merely on the ground that the certified companyy of the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was number annexed with the memo of Revision.
The appellant has also number been able to establish his possession over these plots and there is numbersatisfactory evidence to prove the same.
These structures, namely, the storage tank for molasses and the tank for sullage water were said to exist since the time of Messrs Indira Sugar Works which was established in the year 1932 33 by one Seth Inder Sain who, after taking permission of the then Zamindars, had companystructed molasses tank and also a tank for storage of sullage water and dumping of waste material, while a portion of the aforesaid plots was used as land appurtenant to staff quarters of the Sugar Mill.
Similarly Pradhan has even tried to companyceal the name of father of Dewa Ram.
He also recorded a finding that the possession over the land in dispute was all along with the respondent.
