SONA RAM Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil writ petition raises an interesting question about the effect of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act concerning what was at one time admittedly evacuee property. A few salient facts which help follow the controversy in this case may have to be noticed.

(2.) The property in question originally belonged to Mohd. Ashraf who left for Pakistan in 1947. The properties, whatever they were (whether it was grove land, as stated by the petitioner, or merely vacant land on which a few trees only were planted by respondents 1 & 2) were sold, as Government acquired property, in an auction held by the Managing Officer on 25th March, 1957, to the petitioner Shri Sona Ram (now deceased) for a sum of Rs.4,600.00. Shri Sona Ram having died an application was made (C.M.-P. No. 1923 of 1968) to bring on record the legal repre- sentatives of Sona Ram. Shri Dalal and Shri Dhawan, represented the legal representatives also; the petition (CMP No. 1923 of 1968) was not opposed. The final order to be passed on the said application, however, is that the CMP is allowed and the petitioners 2 to 6 are brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased, the first petitioner.

(3.) The properties being situate in U.P. on the abolition of the U.P. Zamindari consequent on the land reforms introduced in that State, respondents 1 and 2 were declared by the Assistant Collector, under section 7 of the United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act 1949, as not being liable to be evicted by any order or decree of Court, that they would be liable to pay the revenue at half the rate and that on the coming into force of that Act they would be entitled to the grant of Bhumidari rights. This order was issued on the 11th February, 1951. The case of the respondents 1, 2 is that they became the occupiers of the land in question after the evacuee, Mohd. Ashraf, left for Pakistan in 1947 and that by the said order (made Annexure A.I to the return) they were declared to be entitled to the Bhumidari rights in respect of the said land and, therefore, the Managing Officer could not sell these lands to the petitioner in the year 1957. It may also be noticed in this connection that the petitioner, on the one side, and respondent 2, on the other, have been asserting that each of them is in possession of the land in question upto the present moment.