LAIQ SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Laiq Singh.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petition there was on Murli Singh who was tenant of a certain piece of land in village Raipur Manipur, pargana Akrabad, district Aligarh. By means of an application dated 20 6 -50 he obtained Bhumidbari sanad under Section 6 of the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act and in the sanad he got the name of Govind Singh, father of opposite parties Nos. 3 -7 also included as a co bhumidhar. Later on, the rights of Murli Singh were' purchased by the Petitioner by means of a salt deed dated 6 -8 -55. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the said Act against Govind Singh in the court of the Judicial Officer, Aligarh praying that a declaration be granted in his name under Section 6 and the name of Govind Singh be cancelled, as Govind Singh was never a cotenant or a sub -tenant of the holding in dispute.

(3.) IT was contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the view of the Additional Commissioner is erroneous, because Section 13 is not confined to appeals against orders only of 'modification' or 'cancellation' under Section 12 but it applies to all orders passed under Section 12. Section 13 reads as follows: