LALAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition which had been filed by the appellants.

(2.) The appellants were the Zamindars of certain plots in three villages in district Basti in the State of Utter Pradesh. One Tameshar was an occupancy tenant in these plots. He died in August 1945. On his death Lalai, respondent No. 4, entered into possession of the said plots asserting that he was Tomeshars daughters son. One of the appellants filed a suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act 1939 for his ejectment on the ground that he was a trespasser. That suit was ultimately dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the plaintiff did not have the right to institute the suit alone without impleading the other co-sharers. Thereafter the appellants and others who constituted the entire body of the co-sharers instituted a fresh suit for ejectment of Lalai. The trial court decreed the suit holding that Lalai was not the daughters son of Tameshar but was a mere trespasser. Lalai preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed in July 1951. He preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was admitted and the execution of the decree was stayed. On July 1, 1952 the , hereinafter called the Act, came into force. The hearing of the appeal was stayed under Rule 4 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. During the pendency of the appeal Ishwar Din who was one of the respondents died on August 9, 1954. The respondents contended that the entire appeal had abated for want of substitution of the heirs of the deceased respondant. The appellants, however, maintained that the suit itself had abated under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. The two members of the Revenue Board expressed separate opinions. Shri S.N. Mitra was of the view that the appeal along with the suit had abated, whereas Shri R.N. Singh, the Judicial Member, held that the appeal had abated under Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC. On September 20, 1956 an order was made dismissing the appeal. Lalai continued to remain in possession. He challenged the order of the Board of Revenue by means of a petition under Article 26 of the Constitution and obtained an interim order staying execution of the decree for ejectment which had been obtained by the appellants under Section 180 of the Tenancy Act. The writ petitions was dismissed by Broome J. on February 7, 1962.

(3.) Meanwhile a notification was issued in January 1960 under the U P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. This related to 194 villages in the district of Basti including the villages in which the land in dispute was situate. Thereupon the proceedings under the aforesaid Act commenced. Appellants Nos. 2 and 4 and the predecessors in-interest of appellants Nos. 1 and 3 moved the Consolidation Officer for their names being recorded against the plots in dispute as Bhoomidars and for the deletion of the name of respondent No. 4 Lalai therefrom. The Consolidation Officer disposed of the matter on April 29, 1961. He held that Lalai was only a trespasser and he could not acquire any Sirdari rights on the basis of possession. His name was ordered to be deleted. Lalai went up in appeal to the Additional Settlement Officer (Consolidation) The appeal was dismissed. Lalai preferred a second appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On August 17, 1961 that appeal was allowed as he was in possession of the suit land in 1356 F. The appellants filed an application for revision in the court of Commissioner who was acting as Director of Consolidation. On April 28, 1962 the Commissioner dismissed that appeal. The appellants then moved the High Court under Article 26 of the Constitution The learned Single Judge who heard the petition was of the view that on the date of the vesting with reference to the provisions of the Act, namely, July 1, 1952 the appellants were only intermediaries and since the land had vested in the State and the appellants had no subsisting rights their petition was not maintainable. This order was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal which was dismissed summarily.