http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SHIVESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GHARAHU & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1978

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1979 AIR  413            1979 SCR  (2) 296  1979 SCC  (3)  23

ACT:      U.P. Zamindari  Abolition &  Land  Reforms  Act,  1950- Section 20-Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enacted  for the  abolition of  zamindari  system  which involved intermediaries  between the  tiller or the soil and the State.  The Act  provides for  the  acquisition  of  the rights, title  and interest  of intermediaries and to reform the  law  relating  to  land  tenure  consequent  upon  such abolition. Chapter II makes provision for acquisition of the interest of  intermediaries  and  the  consequences  flowing therefrom.  As   from  the   date  to   be  specified  in  a notification to  be  issued  by  the  State  Government  all estates situate in the State shall vest in the State and all such estates  shall stand transferred and vest, with certain exceptions, in the State free from all encumbrances.      Section 20  confers the  status of  adhivasi on certain classes of  tenants,  sub  tenants  and  occupants.  Section 20(a)(i) which seeks to confer on a tenant of sir the status of adhivasi  provides that  every person  who is a tenant of sir would  become an  adhivasi of  the land,  unless he  has become a  bhumidar of the land under 8. 18(2) or asami under s. 21 (h) and shall be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. Section  20(b) (i)  provides that  every person who was recorded  as occupant  of any  land  in  the  khasra  or Khatauni of  1356F shall  become adhivasi  except in certain cases. Section 21(h) provides that every person who, on. the date preceding  the date of vesting occupied or held land as a tenant of sir a sub-tenant or occupant, shall be deemed to be an asami thereof.      The plaintiff  was an intermediary who held the land in dispute as sir under s. 18 of the Abolition Act and became a bhumidar of the land.      In three  different suits  filed against the defendants the plaintiff  claimed that  she  was  entitled  to  recover possession from  the defendants,  who were tenants of sir on the ground  that she  was  holding  the  suit  lands  as  an intermediary and  held the land as sir. She claimed that (i) she had  become a  bhumidar under  s. 18 of the Act and (ii) she being  a disabled person within the meaning of s. 157 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

the Act and the defendant in each case being an occupant had become an asami by the combined operation of s. 20(b)(i) and s.  21(h)  and,  therefore,  she  was  entitled  to  recover possession from  the defendant in each suit. The defendants, in each  suit on the other hand, claim ed that he had become an adhivasi and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession.      The plaintiff’s  suits  were  dismissed  by  the  lower court. Appeals to the District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. 297      In appeal  to this  Court it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs  that A  if the tenant of sir who falls under s. 20(a)(i)  is also  recorded as occupant under s. 20(b)(i) in the khasra of 1356F he would become an occupant aud would acquire the status of adhivasi under s. 20(b)(i) and in that event if  the landholder  of such  occupant  is  a  disabled person within the meaning of s. 157, such occupant would not be an adhivasi but shall be deemed to be an asami thereof in view of the provisions contained in s. 21(h).      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: (1) If the defendant in each case was a tenant of sir in  respect of land of which possession is sought by the plaintiff and  no one else was shown as the occupant of such land in  1356F obviously  the defendant  in each  case would become adhivasi  under s.  20(a) (i).  Therefore, s.  21 (h) would not  be attracted because the third clause of s. 21(h) refers to  an occupant  as  envisaged  in  s.  20(b)(i)  and therefore the defendant would not become an asami as therein contemplated. [305D-E]      (2) Although  the expression  "occupant" is not defined in the  Abolition Act  it has  been interpreted  to  mean  a person holding  the land  in possession or actual enjoyment. If a  person was  a tenant  of sir  on the  date immediately preceding the  date of  vesting but  was not  recorded as an occupant in  Khasra  or  Khatauni  of  1356F  he  became  an adhivasi and not an asami under s. 20(a)(i). If on the other hand he  is not only a tenant of sir and is also recorded as an occupant  in the  khasra or  khatauni  of  1356F  meaning thereby that  if on  the relevant  date he was in possession and actual  enjoyment of  the land, he would become adhivasi under s.  20(b)(i) and  would  be  exposed  to  the  further exception enacted  in 8.  21(h) which,  if attracted,  would make him  asami. Therefore,  a tenant  of sir  not being  in possession on the relevant date would be in a more favorable position than  one who  would be  in continuous  undisturbed possession being  recorded as occupant in khasra or Khatauni of  1356F.   Such  could   not  be   the  intention  of  the legislature. [302H; 303A-B]      Amba Prasad  v. Abdul  Noor Khan  & Ors.,  [1964] 7 SCR 800; referred to.      Kumari   Radha    Kishori   v.    Joint   Director   of Consolidation, U.P., 1972 All. L.J. 738; approved.      (3) Section  20(a)(i) and  (ii) provide  for conferring the status  of adhivasi  on a tenant of sir or sub-tenant as the case  may be, but it also comprehends the situation that such a  tenant  of  sir  or  a  sub-tenant  may  not  be  in possession  and  there  may  be  someone  else  recorded  as occupant in khasra or khatauni of 1356 which would mean that someone other than the tenant of sir, or a sub-tenant was in possession or  actual enjoyment  of the  land. It is such an occupant who  is in  actual possession and enjoyment of land being the  tiller of  soil, was to be adhivasi in preference to tenant  of Sir  or sub-tenant of such land. Such class of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

occupant envisaged  in s.  20(b)(i)  is  taken  out  of  the operation of  9. 20(a)(i) or (ii) by engrafting an exception except as provided in s. 20(b) (i). That is why s. 20(a) (i) and (ii)  open with an exception, namely, except as provided in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) which would mean that except where there is an occupant recorded in 1356 F on the land of which there  is tenant of sir or sub-tenant the latter would become adhivasi,  but where  there is  an occupant  on  land recorded in 1356 F such occupant would be adhivasi. [303F-H] 298 With  a   view  to  extinguishing  feudal  overlordship  and removing  all  intermediaries  so  as  to  establish  direct relationship between the State and the tiller of the soil, a bold  attempt   was  made   by  the   Act  to   remove   all intermediaries. This laudable object in enacting the statute must inform interpretative process and where the language is ambiguous or  capable  of  two  interpretations,  the  court should  so   interpret  the  provision  as  to  advance  the legislative intendment. [301A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1198- 1200 of 1969      (Appeals by  special leave  from the Judgment and Order dt. 29.10.68 of the Allahabad High Court in S. A. Nos. 3949- 3950 and 4000 of 1959)       J.  P. Goyal,  S. M.  Jain and  S.  K.  Jain  for  the appellant.      Yogeshwar Prasad,  S. Baggai  and Meera  Bali  for  the respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.-These  three appeals  by special  leave arise from three  different suits  filed by plaintiff Smt. Raj Rup Kunwar for  possession of  certain plots  of land  from  the defendants in  each suit  under  section  202  of  the  U.P. Zamindari Abolition  and Land  Reforms Act,  1950 (Abolition Act’, for short), alleging that on the relevant date she was holding the  land involved in the suit as an intermediary as sir and  has according  by become bhumidhar under section 18 of the  Abolition Act and she being a disabled person within the meaning of Section 157, the defendant in each case being an occupant,  has become  an asami by the combined operation of section 20(b) (i) and section 21 (h) of the Abolition Act and, therefore,  she is  entitled to recover possession from the defendant  in each  suit. The  defendant  in  each  suit contested the  claim of  the plaintiff  contending that  the defendant  in   each  case   has  become  an  adhivasi  and, therefore,  the   plaintiff  is   not  entitled  to  recover possession. The  Sub-Divisional officer  in whose  court the suit was instituted agreed with the defendants and dismissed the suits  and the first appeal in each suit to the District Judge, Varanasi  and the  Second Appeal to the High Court at Allahabad did  not meet  with success.  Hence,  the  present appeals  by   the  legal  representatives  of  the  original plaintiff who  died in the course of litigation. The appeals were consolidated  by the High Court and were disposed of by a common judgment.      The facts  concurrently found  and not  in dispute  are that the deceased plaintiff was an intermediary who held the land involved  in the dispute as sir and under section 18 of the Abolition  Act became a bhumidhar of the land. Defendant in each  case was  the tenant of sir. Deceased plaintiff was paying more than Rs. 250/- per annum and, therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

299 section 16  would not be attracted. Plaintiff was a disabled person A  within the  meaning of section 10 and section 157. All the  Courts are  agreed that  the defendant in each suit was recorded as tenant of sir in the khasra of 1356 Fasli.      On these  undisputed facts  a  narrow  but  interesting question raised in these appeals is whether the defendant in each case  would become  an adhivasi under section 20(a) (i) or an  asami by  the combined  operation of section 20(b)(i) and section 21(1)(h) of the Abolition Act      Section 20 reads as under:-           "20. Every. person who-           (a)  on the date immediately preceding the date of      vesting was or has been deemed to be in accordance with      the provisions of this Act-           (i)  except  as  provided  in  sub-clause  (i)  of      clause (b),  a tenant  of  sir  (other  than  a  tenant      referred to  in clause  (ix) of  section 19 or in whose      favour hereditary  rights accrue in accordance with the      provisions of Section 10) or           (ii) except as  provided  in  [sub-clause  (i)  of      clause  (b),  a  sub-tenant  other  than  a  sub-tenant      referred to in proviso to sub-section (3) of sec ion 27      of the  United Provinces  Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947      (U.P. Act  XVII of  1939), of any land other than grove      land,           (b)  was recorded as occupant,-           (i)  of any land [other than grove land or land to      which section  16 applies  or land  referred to  in the      proviso to  sub- section  (3) of section 27 of the U.P.      Tenancy  (Amendment)   Act,  1947]  in  the  khasra  or      khatauni or  1356 F.  prepared under  section 28 and 33      respectively of  the U.P.  Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P.      Act III  of 1901),  or who  was on the date immediately      preceding  the  date  of  vesting  entitled  to  regain      possession thereof  under clause (c) of sub-section (1)      of  section   27  of   the  United   Provinces  Tenancy      (Amendment) Act,, 1947 (U.P. Act X of 1947), or           (ii) of any  land to  which section 36 applies, in      the khasra  or khatauni  of 1956  Fasli prepared  under      sections 28 and 33 respectively of the United Provinces      Land Revenue  Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), but who      was not in possession in the year 1356 F. 300      shall, unless  he has  become a  bhumidhar of  the land      under sub-section  (2) of  section 18 or an asami under      clause (h)  of section  21, be  called adhivasi  of the      land and  shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,      be entitled to take or retain possession thereof".      Section 21 (1) (h) reads as under :-           "21. Non-occupancy  tenants, sub-tenants of grove-      lands  and   tenant’s  mortgagees   to  be   asamis-(1)      Notwithstanding anything  contained in  this Act, every      person who,  on the date immediately preceding the date      of vesting, occupied or held land as-           (h)  a tenant  of sir  of land referred to in sub-      clause (a)  of clause  (i)  of  the  explanation  under      section 16, a sub-tenant referred to in sub-clause (ii)      of clause  (a) of section 20 or an occupant referred to      in sub-clause  (i) of  clause (b)  of the  said section      where the  landholder or  if there  are more  than  one      land-holders, all  of them  were person  or persons  be      longing-           (a)  if the  land was let out or occupied prior to                the ninth  day of  April, 1946,  both on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

              date of  letting or  occupation, as  the case                may be,  and on the ninth day of April, 1946"                and           (b)  if the  land was  let out or occupied (on or)                after the  ninth day  of April,  1946, on the                date of letting or occupation.      to any  one or  more of  the classes  mentioned in sub-      section (1) of section 157.      shall be deemed to be an asami thereof".      The Abolition Act as its Preamble shows, was enacted to provide for  the abolition  of the  Zamindari  system  which involved intermediaries  between the  tiller of the soil and the State  in Uttar Pradesh and for the acquisition of their rights. title and interest and to reform the law relating to land tenure  consequent upon  such abolition and acquisition and  to   make  provisions   for  other   matters  connected therewith. Chapter II makes provision for acquisition of the interest of  intermediaries  and  the  consequences  flowing therefrom. On  a notification  to be  issued  br  the  State Government after  the commencement  of the  Act as  from the date to be specified in notification all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh  shall vest  in the State and all such estates shall stand transferred and 301 vest, except otherwise provided, in the State, free from all encumbrances. With  a view  to  extinguishing  feudal  over- lordship and  removing all intermediaries so as to establish direct relationship  between the State and the tiller of the soil, a bold attempt was made by the Abolition Act to remove all intermediaries.  This laudable  object in  enacting  the statute must  inform interpretations  process and  where the language is  ambiguous, or  capable of  two interpretations, the Court  should so  interpretations the  provisions as  to advance the  legislative intendment.  Bearing in  mind  this well-known   canon   of   construction   of   such   welfare legislation, we  may now  approach the  specific contentions raised in this appeal.      Section 20  which we  have extracted above provides for conferring   Adhivasi status  on certain classes of tenants, sub-tenants and occupants. Section 20(a) (i) seeks to confer on a  tenant of  sir the  status  of  adhivasi,  subject  to certain exceptions  enacted in  the  section.  Indisputably, defendant in  each case was a tenant of sir. Sub-section (a) (i) of  s. 20,  omitting inapplicable portion, provides that every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting  was or  has been deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, a tenant of sir, shall, unless he has become  a bhumidhar  of the land under subsection (2) of s. 18  or an  asami under  clause (h) of s. 21, would become adhivasi of the land. Sub-clause (i) of s. 20(a) starts with an exception  as set  out in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of s. 20.  Analysing section  20 (a)  (i) it  would appear that every person  who is a tenant of sir on the date immediately preceding the  date of vesting shall, Unless he has become a bhumidhar under  s. 18(2)  or asami  under s.  21 (h)  would become an  adhivasi. Sub-clause  (i) of  clause (b) provides that every  person who  was recorded as occupant of any land in the  khasra or  khatauni of  1356  Falsi  prepared  under relevant statute,  shall, except in cases therein mentioned, become adivasi  Section 20  confers status  of  adhivasi  on certain classes  of tenants  of sir  as provided in s. 20(a) (i) and  on certain  sub-tenants provided  in section  20(a) (ii) and  on occupants  of land envisaged in s. 20(b)(i) and (ii). The expression except as provided in sub-clause (i) of clause (b)"  both in  section 20(a) (i) and 20(a) (ii) would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

only mean  that except  those persons who would fall in sub- clause (i)  of clause  (b), all other tenants of sir falling under sub-clause (i) of s. 20 (a) or all sub-tenants falling under clause  (ii) of s. 20(a) would become adhivasis unless otherwise provided  in  (2)  or  s.  21  (h)  .  On  a  pure grammatical construction  it would  appear that every tenant of sir  or a sub-tenant covered by clause (i) or clause (ii) of’ s. 20(a), would become adhivasi unless there is some one who is  covered by  clause (b)  (i) of  s.  20  recorded  as occupant of  the land  of which there was a tenant of sir as envisaged by s. 20(3) (i) or 302 a sub-tenant  as envisaged by s. 20(a) (ii). Once in respect of a  land there  is not shown to be any person as envisaged by s.  20(b) (i)  on the  land of which there is a tenant of sir or  a sub-tenant  as envisaged  by s.  20(a)(i) and (ii) respectively, the  latter would become adhivasi but if there is some  one in  respect of  such land  who is  recorded  as occupant and  qualifies for being regarded adhivasi under s. 20(b) (u) he would become adhivasi in preference to or over- riding the  claim of a tenant of sir or sub-tenant described in s. 20(a) (i) or 20(a) (ii) respectively.      It was,  however, contended  that the  occupant is  not defined in  the Act  and that  the occupant  can only mean a person holding  the land  in possession or actual enjoyment. Proceeding further  it was  said that if a tenant of sir who falls under  s. 20(a) (i) is also recorded as occupant under s. 20(b) (i) in the khasra of 1356 Fasli, he would become an occupant and  would acquire  the status of adhivasi under s. 20(b) (i)  and in  that event  if the  land holder  of  such occupant is  a disabled person within the meaning of s. 157, such occupant  would not  be an Adhivasi but shall be deemed to be an asami thereof in view of the provision contained in s.  21(h).  Legal  consequence  of  acquiring  a  status  of adhivasi or  asami is  that in  the former case the disabled person where  occupant such person was cannot evict him from land for  personal cultivation,  which bar does not exist in the case of asami.      It was  contended that  a tenant  of sir  who, if he is also an  occupant of the land within the meaning of s. 20(b) (i), would  become adhivasi  under s. 20(b) (i) whereupon s. 21 (h)  would be  attracted and  such a  tenant of sir would become an  asami and  not  adhivasi.  This  construction  is sought to  be  spelt  out  by  reference  to  the  exception engrafted in s. 20(a) (i) by submitting that a tenant of sir can become  adhivasi under  s. 20(a)  (i), if  on  the  date immediately preceding  the date of vesting he is a tenant of sir but  is not  recorded  as  occupant  in  the  khasra  or khatauni of  1356 F. This approach apart from being contrary to the  grammatical construction  of the  section, also runs counter to the very object or the scheme of the legislation. A tenant  of sir  was more  favour ably  placed than  a mere occupant whose  possession may  not be  referable to a valid title before  the enactment of Abolition Act. The expression ’occupant’ in  Abolition Act  is not defined but it has been interpreted to  mean a person holding the land in possession or actual  enjoyment (see  Amba Prasad  v. Abdul Noor Khan & ors. ).  If a  person  is  a  tenant  of  sir  on  the  date immediately  preceding  the  date  of  vesting  but  is  not recorded as an occupant in khasra or khatauni of 1356 F., he becomes adhivasi  and not  an asami under s. 20(a)(i). If on the other      (1) [1964] 7 S.C.R. 800. 303 hand he  is not only a tenant of sir and is also recorded as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

an occupant  A in  the khasra or Khatauni of 1356 F. meaning thereby that  if on  the relevant  date he was in possession and actual  enjoyment of  the land  he would become adhivasi under s.  20(b) (i)  and would  be exposed  to  the  further exception enacted  in s.  21 (h)  which if  attracted, would make him  asami. Therefore,  a tenant  of sir  not being  in possession  on   the  relevant  date  would  be  in  a  more favourable position  than one  who would  be  in  continuous undisturbed possession  being recorded as occupant in khasra or khatauni  of 1356  F. Such  could not be the intention of the legislature.  Therefore, the  construction suggested  by Mr. Goyal cannot be accepted.      A tenant  of sir  or a sub-tenant would become under s. 20(a) (i)  or (ii), as the case may be, an adhivasi. Now let us recall  the object  in enacting the legislation which was to confer  certain rights  on  person  who  were  in  actual possession of  land.  Legislature  must  have  in  view  the eventuality  where   a  tenant   of  sir  or  sub-tenant  as contemplated by  s. 20(a)  (i) or  (ii), as the case may be, would  not  be  in  possession  but  some  one  else  is  in possession and  enjoyment  and,  therefore,  may  have  been recorded as  an occupant in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F. The statute  in such  a situation  intended  to  confer  the status of  adhivasi on  such occupant  in  preference  to  a tenant of  sir or  sub-tenant who is not in possession. This construction advances  the object  to  be  achieved  by  the legislation, namely  to remove  intermediaries aud  to bring the tiller  of the  soil in  direct relation  to the  State. Section 20(b)  (i) contemplates  an occupent who is recorded in respect  of land  therein mentioned  as being  in  actual possession because  khasra records  possession and enjoyment of the  land  and  therefore  the  expression  occupant  was interpreted to  mearl a  person holding a land in possession or actual  enjoyment. If  this  meaning  of  the  expression ’occupant’ is  kept in  view, s.  20(a)  &  (b)  present  no difficulty  for  construction.  Section  20(a)(i)  and  (ii) provide for conferring the status of adhivasi on a tenant or sir  or   subtenant,  as  the  case  may  be,  but  it  also comprehends the  situation that  such a  tenant of  sir or a sub-tenant may  not be  in possession  and there may be some one else  recorded as occupant in khasra or khatauni of 1356 F. which  would mean  that some one other than the tenant of sir, or  a sub-tenant  was in possession or actual enjoyment of the  land. It  is such  an  occupant  who  is  in  actual possession and  enjoyment of  land being the tiller of soil, was to  be adhivasi  in preference  to tenant of sir or sub- tenant of  such land. Such class of occupant envisaged in s. 20(b) (i)  is taken  out of the operation of s. 20(a) (i) or (ii) by  engrafting an  exception; except  as provided in s. 20(b) (i)  . That ii why s. 20(a) (i) and (a) (ii) open with an exception, namely, except as provi 304 ded in  sub-clause (i)  of clause  (b) which would mean that except where there is an occupant recorded in 1356 F. On the land of  which there  is a  tenant of sir or sub-tenant, the latter would become adhivasi, but where there is an occupant on land recorded in 1356 F. such occupant would be adhivasi. Allahabad High  Court  in  Kumari  Radha  Kishori  v.  Joint Director of  Consolidation, U.P.(I) interpreted s. 20(a) (i) and (ii)  to mean  what we  have  indicated  above  when  it observed that except as provided in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) occuring  in s.  20(a) (i)  indicates that  if ’a’  is a tenant of  sir on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and  ’b’ is  recorded as occupant of sir in 1356 F., then ’b’  will acquire adhivasi rights in preference to ’a’.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

It was further held CC that a person who is in fact a tenant of sir  and who  is so  recorded in  the records of 1356 F., will acquire  adhivasi rights  under s.  20(a) (i)  and  not under s. 20(b) (i).      Mr. Goyal,  however, contended  that this Court in Amba Prasad’s (supra)  case has  in terms  held that  a person in possession alone can be  recorded as an occupant and that if a tenant  of sir  was in possession and actual enjoyment and was, therefore,  recorded as  occupant in  1356 F.  he is an occupant and  the case  would fall  under s. 20(b) (i). In a slightly different context this Court observed as under:           "The word  ’occupant’ is  not defined  in the Act.      Since  khasra records possession and enjoyment the word      ’occupant’ must  mean a  person  holding  the  land  in      possession or  actual enjoyment.  The khasra,  however,      may mention  the proprietor, the tenant, the sub-tenant      and other person in actual pos session, as the case may      be. If  by occupant  is  meant  the  person  in  actual      possession it  is clear that between a proprietor and a      tenant the  tenant, and  between a  tenant and  the sub      tenant the  sub-tenant the latter and between him and a      person recorded  in  the  remarks  column  as  "Dawedar      Qabiz" the dawedar qabiz are the occupants. This is the      only logical  way to  interepret the section which does      away with all intermediaries". Instead of  supporting the  construction as canvassed for by Mr. Goyal, this observation accords with the construction as put by  us. The whole gamut of law under discussion proceeds in the  direction of  removal of intermediaries of all sorts and kinds  so as  to bring  the tiller in direct relation to the State.  Now, if there is a tenant of sir or a sub-tenant of 11  a land  who held  the status  or character on the day just preceding the      (1) 1972 Allahabad Law Journal 738. 305 date of vesting but some one other than the tenant or sir or sub-tenant is  recorded as occupant in khasra or khatauni of 1356 F.  Obviously  the  tenant  of  sir  or  sub-tenant  is intermediary  and  by  conferring  adhivasi  status  on  the occupant in  such circumstances the intermediaries are being done away  with. The  hierarchy set  out  in  Amba  Prasad’s (supra) case  would show  that Dawedar Qabiz means person in actual possession but whose possession is not referable to a valid title  would become  an occupant.  This would indicate that  in   considering  relative  rights  s.  20(b)  accords preference to one in actual possession against one who holds some right in the land. The construction, therefore., as put by us accords with the object and purpose of the legislation and it  is a wellsettled rule of construction that where two constructions are possible, one which advances the object of the, legislation  must be  preferred to one which may retard or frustrate the object of the legislation.      The view  in Amba Prasad’s (supra) case was affirmed by this Court  in Nath  Singh &  ors. v. The Board of Revenue & ors.(1)      If dependant  in each  case was  a  tenant  of  sir  in respect of  land of  which the  possession is  sought by the plaintiff and  no one else was shown as the occupant of such land in  1356 F., obviously the defendant in each case would become adhivasi  under s.  20(a) (i).  Therefore, s.  21 (h) would not be attracted as contended for by Mr. Goyal in this case because  the third  clause of  s. 21  (h) refers  to an occupant as  envisaged in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of s. 20 and,  therefore, the  defendant would not become an asami as therein  contemplated. In  this view  of the  matter  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

plaintiff’s suit  has been  rightly  dismissed.  Accordingly these appeals  fail and  are dismissed  with no  order as to costs. P.B.R.                                    Appeals dismissed.      (1) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 498. 306