RAM NATH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against order passed by Board of Revenue in proceedings for ejectment arising out of case started under Rule 115-C. On 25th April 70 a report was submitted by Lekhpal that Petitioners had taken unlawful possession over plot No. 273/1 area 58 acres since 1362F. Notice was issued and an objection was filed by Petitioners who claimed to be in possession over land in dispute since before abolition of Zamindari. It was also claimed that land was their tenancy plot and in any case as bona fide dispute regarding title was raised proceedings under Rule 115-C were not maintainable. The Assistant Collector made local inspection and found that entire area of plot No. 273 was 3.58 acres out of which 3 acres was sirdari of Petitioner and they were in possession of it. It was further found that 58 was in shape of tank. He therefore recorded a finding that area on which there was water no more continued to be sirdari land. He accordingly accepted the report of Lekhpal and directed ejectment of Petitioner from .58 acres of plot No. 273. In revision the Additional Commissioner made a recommendation in Petitioner's favour but Board of Revenue did not agree with it and dismissed the revision as there was no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court.

(2.) The first question which needed determination was whether Gaon Sabha had any title to initiate proceedings under Rule 115-C. A land may assume shape of tank but that since is not sufficient to vest it in State Govt. or Gaon Sabha. It should have been so on the date of vesting. Where it is found that tank has been formed out of bigger plot major portion of which was tenancy it becomes necessary to find out whether tank was formed before or after date of vesting. If entire area was land on date of vesting then Petitioner became sirdar and subsequent formation of tank did not divest tenure holder of his right unless proceedings under Zamindari Abolition Act are taken. In any case it would not vest in Gaon Sabha under Sec. 117 of Z. A. Act. The learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha vehemently argued that land in dispute is shown in column 4 of khatauni which was prima facie proof that land was Gaon Sabha land. The entries in revenue records are not conclusive. As Petitioner was found sirdar of plot No. 273, of which land in dispute is part it was necessary to ascertain whether this part ceased to be sirdari before or after date of vesting. In absence of any finding on this question it would be expedient to remand this case to Board of Revenue to decide revision afresh.

(3.) The learned Counsel for Petitioner urged that Board of Revenue committed manifest error of law in dismissing revision on ground that there was no jurisdictional error. The jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Rule 115-C depended on finding whether land vested in Gaon Sabha or not. This was therefore jurisdictional fact and in exercise of its revisional power the Board of Revenue is required to examine it.