STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SARJOO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5/02/1968 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decisions of the District Judge and the Civil Judge, Basti, dated 20/05/1960 and 27/07/1959 respectively decreeing the suit instituted by respondent No. 1 herein under sub-section (7) of Sec. 212A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act'), which came into force on 26/01/1951, arises in the following circumstances:-

(2.) ON a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit land was never recorded in the revenue papers as customary pasture land but was recorded in the Khatoni relating to 1357 Fasli (1950 A. D.) as "Parti land fit for cultivation"; that there was also no evidence to supprot the contention of the appellant that the suit land was used in any year as common pasture land or as pasture land; that even the appellant had to concede that some 10 or 12 bighas of the suit land had been brought under cultivation by respondent No. 1; that the suit land had been let out to respondent No. 1/05/1950 when she became a hereditary tenant of the same; that the suit land not being a customary pasture land, the order dated 16/08/1955 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khalilabad was illegal, null and void and was not binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court further held that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by respondent No. 1 established that she had been recorded in the revenue papers as hereditary tenant of the land: that respondent No. 1 had also been held by the competent revenue courts in suits Nos. 1178 of 1950, 780 of 1950 and 285 of 1952 filed by her under Sections 59 and 61 of the U. P. T. Act as hereditary tenant and that she had become sirdar of the suit land on the date of vesting. With these findings, the Civil Judge, Basti decreed the suit with costs in favour of respondent No. 1 by his judgment and decree dated 27/07/1959. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the State of U. P. went up in appeal to the District Judge, Basti who by his judgment and decree dated 20/05/1960 affirmed the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court holding inter alia that the suit land had been let out to respondent No. 1 for the purpose of growing crops; that in revenue papers (Exhibits 1, 7 and 8) which relate to the years 1358, 1359 and 1362 Faslis, she had been recorded as hereditary tenant of the suit land and she became sirdar thereof on the date of vesting viz., 1/07/1952. ON further appeal, the High Court by its judgment dated 5/02/1968, upheld the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the District Judge, Basti. It is against this judgment and decree that the State of U. P. had come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) A conjoint reading of the provisions of these two sections would show that the chairman, member or secretary of a committee referred to in Sec. 121 can make an application to the Collector for ejectment of a person only if the land of which he is in possession is of the description specified in Section 212 i. e. (1) if it was recorded as customary pasture land or (2) if it was customary common pasture land. The evidence adduced in the case does not at all show that the suit land was recorded as customary pasture land nor does it show that it was in fact customary common pasture land. On the contrary, the appellant's own record clearly negatives its case. In Exhibits 2 and 45 which are copies of settlement Khatoni of 1323 Fasli, the land in question is clearly recorded as 'Parti' with long thatching grass. Again in khatoni of 1357 Fasli (1950 A. D.), the land is recorded as "Parti fit for cultivation." The courts below were, therefore perfectly right in holding that there is no evidence to support the appellant's contention that the land in question was either recorded as customary common pasture land or had ever been used as customary pasture land or pasture land in any year. Manifestly therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad acted without jurisdiction and the impugned order passed by him directing the ejectment of the respondent No. 1 was wholly illegal, ineffective, null and void and not at all binding on respondent No. 1.