JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned chief standing counsel and Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned standing counsel.
2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation. By the aforesaid order dated 22.9.1998, the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided 29 revisions including the revision of the petitioners.
3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Both the parties have agreed that writ petitions be finally decided. A bunch of writ petitions with leading case being Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999, Ram Kumar and Anr., v. Zila Adhikari/District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., has been decided today by a separate judgment by which order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.9.1998 has already been quashed. In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are also being finally decided.
4. The facts and submissions raised in these two writ petitions are almost similar to the facts and submissions in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 which has been decided today by separate Judgment. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.9.1998 by which the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has effected the chak allotment in favour of the petitioners. The writ petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
5. In Writ Petition No. 40758 of 1998, the petitioner's case is that petitioner, Brahmi, belongs to Scheduled Caste and was allotted Chak No. 922. An objection was filed by one Rahambaj and certain other persons under Section 21 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 23.3.1988 effecting the chafe of the petitioner. It is claimed that the said order became final. No revision or appeal was filed. The petitioner claims to have purchased Plots No. 59/1, 59/2. 59/3 and 62/1 by a sale deed. She claims to have filed Revision No. 416 which was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 22.5.1994 by which Plot No. 741/5 was given to the petitioner. The Gaon Sabha filed certain revisions and applications before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on which the order dated 22.9.1998 was passed. The petitioner's case is that she was not given any notice by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation and the ex parte order was passed on 22.9.1998 affecting the chafe of the petitioner. It is clairried that petitioner's chafe on Plot Nos. 740/1 and 740/2 has been taken away. In second writ petition which is Writ Petition No. 43296 of 1998, it has been submitted that petitioner was allotted Chak No. 1461 with original holding 541/4 and 541/5. In the chak allotment proceedings, the petitioner was given Plot No. 931/1. It is claimed that Deputy Director of Consolidation has finalised the chak by the order dated 22.5.1993. Against the order dated 22.5.1993, the Gaon Sabha filed a revision which was rejected on 3.5.1993. By the order dated 22.9.1998, the chak of the petitioner has been affected. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of Plot No. 931/1. It is further stated in the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order dated 22.9.1998.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 22.9.1998 is ex parte to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 43296 of 1998. It is also submitted that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.5.1993 has become final. Most of the submissions raised in these two writ petitions are common to the submissions raised in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 which have already been elaborately dealt with in the judgment of date given in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999. One additional submission which has been raised in the present writ petition is the claim of the petitioner under Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Sri Arjun Singhal, counsel for the petitioners, contended that petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste and they were continuing in possession of their chafes including Gaon Sabha land since before the relevant date, i.e., 30th June, 1995, hence have acquired right under Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the petitioners cannot be displaced from the aforesaid plots and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.9.1998 is Illegal.
7. Refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioners, learned, chief standing counsel has submitted that the provisions of Section 122B (4F) are not attracted in the present case. He has submitted that the question of unauthorised occupation does not come into play till notification under Section 52 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is issued. With regard to other submissions, the submission raised by counsel for the respondents are the same which has been raised in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999.
8. After having heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, it is clear that other submissions raised by counsel for the parties have already been dealt in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999, hence need not be mentioned here. The only submission which is required to be considered in the present case is the submission of counsel for the petitioners based on Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Although there is no pleading in the writ petitions by the petitioners claiming rights on the basis of Section 122B (4F) but since the question relates to applicability of Section 122B (4F) and may arise when the matter is heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is in the fitness of things to permit the petitioners to raise this submission in the writ petitions.
9. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste and they having continuing in possession of the respective chaks since before relevant date under Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, have acquired right over the land belonging to Gaon Sabha and the said land cannot be taken away and the impugned order dated 22.9.1998 by which the aforesaid plots have been taken away is illegal. Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been substituted by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1986. The said sub-section is one of the sub-sections of Section 122B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 122B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act relates to power of the Land Management Committee and the Collector. Section 122B is extracted below :
"122B. Powers of the Land Management Committee and the Collector.--[(1) Where any property vested under the provisions of this Act in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority is damaged or misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha or local authority is entitled to take or retain possession of any land under the provisions of this Act and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Land Management Committee or Local Authority, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed.
(2) Where from the information received under Sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in Sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated or any person is in occupation of any land, referred to in that sub-section, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation as mentioned in such notice be not recovered from him or, as the case may be why he should not be evicted from such land, (3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under Sub-section (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time not exceeding three months from the date of service of such notice on such person, as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person may be evicted from the land and may for that purpose, use, or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may direct that the amount of compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue.
(4) If the Assistant Collector is of opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damage or misappropriation or wrongful occupation referred to in the notice under Sub-section (2) he shall discharge the notice.
(4A) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of such order prefer, a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 333.
(4B) The procedure to be followed in any action taken under this section shall be such as may be prescribed.
(4C) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 333 or Section 333A, but subject to the provisions of this section ;
(i) every order of the Assistant Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (4A) and (4D), be final.
(ii) every order of the Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4D), be final.
(4D) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this section may file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property, (4E) No such suit as is referred to in Sub-section (4D) shall lie against an order of the Assistant Collector is a revision is preferred to the Collector under Sub-section (4A).
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, the expression 'Collector' means the officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Additional Collector.] (4F) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before June 30, 1975 and the land so occupied together with land, If any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195.] [(5) Rules 115C to 115H of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, shall be and be always deemed to have been made under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1961, as if this section has been in force on all material dates and shall accordingly continue in force until altered or repealed or amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]"
10. Section 122B,- as quoted above, provides for the mode and procedure for taking action with regard to property vested in the Gaon Sabha or local authority, which is damaged or misappropriated. Various sub-sections relate to procedure and remedy with regard to aforesaid action. Sub-section (4F) has been substituted to save certain category of persons, namely, agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe from the aforesaid action is he is in occupation of the Gaon Sabha property since before particular date. The said provision is a beneficial provision enacted for saving the occupation of members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, who are agricultural labourer. In fact. Section 4F is exception to general rule envisaged in Section 122B for taking action against occupation or misappropriation of Gaon Sabha property. Sub-section (4F) contemplates a deeming provision to the effect that such agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste -and Scheduled Tribe shall be deemed to have been admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195.
11. The allotment proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are conducted in accordance with provisions of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. A tenure holder is entitled to allotment of his original holding or other holding equivalent to valuation of his original holding. The person allotted chak acquires right and title over the allotted plots. Section 30 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act gives consequences. Section 30 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is quoted below :
"30. Consequences which shall ensue on exchange of possession.--With effect from the date on which a tenure-holder - enters, or is deemed to have entered into possession of the chak allotted to him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the following consequences shall ensue :
(a) the rights, title, interest and liabilities :
(i) of the tenure-holder entering, or deemed to have entered, into possession, and
(ii) of the former tenure-holder of the plots comprising the chak in their respective original holdings shall cease ; and
(b) the tenure-holder entering into possession or deemed to have entered into possession, shall have in his chak the same rights, title, interests and liabilities as he had in the original holdings together with such other benefits or irrigation from a private source, till such source exists, as the former tenure-holder of the plots comprising the chak had in regard to them ;
(c) land vested in the Gaon Sabha, or any local authority, and allotted to the tenure-holder shall be deemed to have been resumed by the State Government under the provisions of Section 117 or Section 117A, as the case may be, of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U, P. Act No. 1 of 1951), and settled with the tenure-holder ;
(d) the rights of the public as well as all individuals in or over land included in a chak following a declaration made under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 19A, shall cease and be in the land specified for the purpose in the final Consolidation Scheme ; and
(e) the encumbrances, if any, upon the original holding or the tenure holder entering, or deemed to have been, entered, into possession, whether by way of lease, mortgage or otherwise, shall, in respect of that holding, cease, and be created on the holdings, or on such part thereof, as may be specified in the final Consolidation Scheme."
From the provisions of Section 30, it is clear that all the plots which are allotted in a chak of tenure holder, the tenure-holder acquires right and title. Thus, if any portion of Gaon Sabha land is allotted in chak of a tenure holder, the said tenure-holder acquires the right and title in the aforesaid plot. The chak allotment proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are subject to revision and appeal as contemplated under the Act. Under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to examine the record of any case decided or proceeding taken by any subordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to legality or impropriety of any order. The allotment made under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act thus can be changed, modified exercising the power of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Section 122B (4F) contemplates giving right to an agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe of the Gaon Sabha land, who does not have any right to be in possession. After the allotment under the U. P, Consolidation of Holdings Act, tenure-holder gets right and is entitled to be in possession of the aforesaid land. Thus, with regard to chak allotted to tenure-holder under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, there is no scope of applying provisions of Section 122B (4F). Section 122B is essentially a provision relating to powers of Land Management Committee and the Collector for taking action against person, who occupied or misappropriated the Gaon Sabha property. Thus, Sub-section (4F) is also attracted to similar nature of land, i.e., the land to which the person occupying has no title. While interpreting sub-sections of any section the provisions have to be read as whole. The Apex Court in Kalawatibai v. Soiryabai and Ors., 1991 (3) SCC 410, held in paragraph 6 as under:
"6. ..... It is well-settled that a section has to be read in its entirety as one composite unit without bifurcating it or ignoring any part of it. Viewed from this perspective, the section, undoubtedly, comprises two parts, one descriptive, specifying the essential requirements for applicability of the section, other consequences arising out of it. One cannot operate without the other. Neither can be read in isolation. Both are integral parts of the section ....."
Thus, while construing the nature of land on which Sub-section (4F) will be held to be applicable, the aforesaid provisions of Section 122B has to be taken into consideration. Sub-section (4F) contemplates giving right to a person of deeming himself to be bhumidhar with non-transferable rights whereas he does not have any right on the Gaon Sabha property on which he is in occupation since before the particular date. The aforesaid is not a situation with regard to allotment of land under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioner was, admittedly, allotted land including the plots belonging to Gaon Sabha and he continued in possession on the basis of aforesaid allotment. His possession and interest on the land are on the basis of allotment. Firstly, the said allotment is always subject to power of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hence, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can always exercise power for changing, correcting, modifying the allotment and provisions of Section 122B (4F) does not create any kind of prohibition in exercise of right by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Secondly, the provisions of Section 122B (4F) are not applicable on a land on which petitioner is in possession in pursuance of allotment made under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, by virtue of the allotment he is in possession of the land and his possession and title over the land till the said allotment survives cannot be said unauthorised possession. The possession of the said person being not unauthorised, there is no question of applicability of Section 122B (4F). Thus, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner based on provisions of Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has no substance. The said provision does not come to any aid of the petitioner.
12. For the reasons given in Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 of the date, the order dated 22.9.1998 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the same afresh in accordance with the directions and observations made in the said judgment of the date.
13. The writ petitions are allowed as indicated above.