TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (11) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rights has been prepared or revised, the Revenue Officer shall publish a draft of the record so prepared or revised in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made to any entry therein or to any omission therefrom during the period of such publication. (2) When all such objections have been considered and disposed of according to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf, the Revenue Officer shall finally frame the record and cause such record to be finally published in the prescribed manner and make a certificate stating the fact of such final publication and the date thereof and shall date and subscribe the same under his name and official designation. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by a Revenue Officer on any objection made under Sub-Section (1) may appeal in the prescribed manner- to a Tribunal appointed for the purpose of this section, and within such period and on payment of such court fees as may be prescribed. A draft record-of-rights had been prepared in respect of lands in the village of Howramari and it was left for public inspection as prescribed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Art. 227 of the Constitution. The learned judges by their judgment now under appeal upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in so far as it altered the entry relating to the status of the appellant from a raiyat to that of a tenure holder, but they reversed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in so far as he directed the opening of a sub-khatian and the entry therein of the name of the respondent as a temporary lessee. The learned judges held that there was no material on the basis of which it could be held that the respondent was a temporary lessee. Appeal 105 of 196o is by the appellant and it seeks to question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court affirming the direction to record the name of the appellant as a tenure holder, while appeal 106 of 1960 is by the respondent and calls in question the jurisdiction' and propriety of the High Court's interference with the concurrent findings of the Revenue Tribunals, which had held that the respondent was a temporary lessee for a period of two years on the rent stated earlier. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned judges of the High Court should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent, i. e., to the amendment being allowed. It would therefore be seen that one of the items of objection to the record of rights raised by the respondent related to an error in the description of the status of the appellant as a raiyat. It would further appear that the appellant then raised no objection to the examination by the officer to the correctness of that entry. This apart, the Assistant Settlement Officer, the District judge and the learned judges in the High Court have adduced several cogent and convincing reasons for the finding that the appellant was a tenure holder and not a raiyat. Mr. Chatterjee made no attempt to attack this conclusion or the reasoning on which it was based. His only submission was that the order of the learned judges in the High Court in this respect was illogical since their order in regard to the status of the respondent as a lessee they had deprived him of all benefit arising from his objections under s. 44(1) of the Act. This last argument about the illogicality in the order of the High Court has little merit and such as it has, would depend on the respondent's appeal (C.A.106/60) being dismissed. In view however of the order we propose t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....240, the appellant and the respondent was only as regards the title under which the respondent was in possession. In support of the respondent's case he examined the President and the Vice-President of Sarangabad, U. P. to prove payment of tax in his name, and he produced the records of certain criminal proceedings between him and third parties in which he had been described as a lessee both by the other parties as well as in the reports submitted by police officers. Besides, he produced copies of proceedings under s. 144 Criminal Procedure Code, between himself and the appellant in which there had been a compromise which according to him resulted in or confirmed his possession as a lessee. It also appears that both the appellant and the respondent examined themselves before the Settlement Officer. The reasoning upon which the Assistant Settlement Officer proceeded to arrive at his finding was shortly this : That possession of the land with the respondent from 1954 being admitted the only question for consideration was whether he was a lessee as was sought to be proved by him or whether he was merely a manager and caretaker in the employ of the appellant in receipt of a monthly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as meaning that the respondent was to be in possession for two years as lessee, i. e., during the period during which the four instalments were to be paid and to relinquish possession after January 1956 when the last instalment would have been due and paid, and it was on this basis that he held that the transaction amounted to a temporary lease for 2 years on an annual rental of these findings and considered that all the above pieces of evidence justified the conclusion reached by the Assistant Settlement Officer. When the matter was before the High Court, the learned judges analysed the evidence and held that the statements in the criminal proceedings in which the respondent had been described by third parties as lessee were inadmissible in evidence and irrelevant for the purpose of proving his status and also that the Assistant Settlement Officer and the District judge had misconstrued the compromise. The learned Judge further pointed out: (1) that the respondent had set up a case of a lease on a rental of Rs. 18,500/-per year and that the temporary lease for two years found by the officer was inconsistent with such a pleading, and (2) that the compromise on its proper constru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s possession was attributable to that character. The next question would be as to the terms of that lease-as regards the duration and rent. The evidence disclosed by the compromise and the criminal proceedings between 'the parties militated against the complete acceptance of the respondent's case. The criminal proceedings arose because of the dispute raised by the respondent that he was a lessee, but under the compromise following the award by the S.D. O. he agreed to give up possession at the end of 2 years and to have nothing 'more to do with the property after that date. From these circumstances, the Settlement Officer inferred that the title as lessee which was put forward by the respondent had been conceded to- a limited extent, namely, that he was to remain in possession only till january 1956. Taken in conjunction with the antecedent history, it would not be an unreasonable inference to draw that the character in which the respondent was to remain in possession till he undertook to quit was as a lessee. It would therefore be not correct to say that there was no material to support the finding. If the order could be sustained to that extent, the fixation of the....