OFFICIAL RECEIVER VARANASI Vs. JAGARDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of proceedings under the provi sions of the Provincial Insolvency Act (here inafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) SOME time in 1960, Jagardeo and Behari, arrayed as the first two op posite-parties in this revision, applied for being declared insolvents and there is no controversy that they were so declared some time in 1964, whereafter an Official Recei ver, who is the applicant in this revision, was appointed. In the schedule of property stated to belong to Jagardeo and Behari, only certain moveables were mentioned. In July 1965 the Official Receiver made an application purporting to be under Sec. 4 of the Act which stands dismissed by the order sought to be revised by this petition. In the application, the assertion made by the Official Receiver was that certain agri cultural plots were 'Sirdari' plots of the in solvents which had been under the cultiva tion of the insolvents but the insolvents, under collusion with Basantu and Darbari, described as his relatives, had manipulated false entries in the revenue records through the village Lekhpal in order to defraud their creditors. Basantu and the heirs of Darbari are also impleaded as Opposite-parties in this revision. The relief claimed in the application was as follows:-

(3.) THERE is no controversy that a claim for declaration that a person is the TBhumidhar' of certain land is a relief which falls within the ambit of Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and, further that in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 331 of the said Act, suit for such a relief would normally be maintainable only in the revenue court. What has been con tended on behalf of the Official Receiver is that even so the aforesaid provisions con tained in the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act do not oust the jurisdiction of the insolvency court to decide the question raised by the Official Receiver in his petition under Sec tion 4 of the said Act and to get the relief of declaration prayed for by the Official Re ceiver on that application. The principal argument of learned counsel for the appli cant was that notwithstanding the fact that the property belonging to the insolvents may vest in the Official Receiver the Re ceiver, does not by virtue merely of that fact, himself become the 'sirdar' of any land which, according to him, constitutes land which belonged to the insolvent. We find ourselves unable to accept this contention. Whatever doubt there may have been in regard to what precisely vests in the Offi cial Receiver under Section 28 of the Act, we have no doubt that since the incorpora tion in the aforesaid Act, of Section 28- A, by way of amendment in 1948, the Official Receiver is invested with the status of the insolvent qua property which may be alleged to have belonged to the insolvent as also with the power to recover such property by taking appropriate proceedings. Sec. 28-A of the Act runs as follows:-