LALA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and decree dated 3rd April, 1978 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by Assistant Collector I Class, Allahabad in Suit No. 210 of 1977, under section 229-B of UP ZA and LR Act which has been confirmed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in Appeal No. 121 of 1978 vide judgment dated 16th February 1981 and in Second Appeal No. 124 of 1980-81 vide judgment dated 13th July, 1981 passed by Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad respondent no. 1.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the aforesaid litigation are that respondents no. 4 and 5 to the present writ petition, filed a suit being Suit No. 210 of 1977 under section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act against petitioner Lala and State of Uttar Pradesh and Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad for declaration of their tenancy right in plot no. 288, area 8 Biswa situate in village South Malaka, Pargana and Tahsil Chail, Allahabad. THE case of the respondents no. 4 and 5 not out in the plaint was that the land in dispute is ancestral property and it was acquired by their common ancestor Bani, who had four sons namely Khetai, Lala, Kalicharan and Ram Charan. Ajai Kumar, respondent no. 4 is the son of Kali Charan. THE pedigree has been mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. THEir further case is that plaintiffs were tenants of the land in dispute alongwith defendant no. 1 from before the abolition of the zamindari and they have 1/3rd share each in the land in dispute. It was further stated that Kali Charan and Ram Charan were residing away in connection with their business and the ancestral property at Allahabad was being looked after by Lala and Khetai. THEir names were recorded in the revenue papers in the representative capacity and Karta Khandan THE joint Hindu Family continued upto September, 1964 and the entire agricultural and other property belonged to them jointly. However on 20th September, 1964, there was a family settlement in which all the properties including the land in dispute were partitioned and all the parties were given right to get their names recorded in the revenue papers. However, in July, 1976, defendant no. 1 Lala alleged himself to be the sole owner of the land in dispute and threatened to interfere in their rights and possession over the same hence necessity to file a suit arose, as the land in dispute was recorded only in the name of defendent no. 1, Lala. THE State Government and the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad had no right, title or interest in the land in dispute but as they are necessary legal parties, hence they were impleaded after serving notice under section 80 CPC. THE relief sought in the suit was that they may be declared as co-sirdar in possession of the land in dispute alongwith defendant no. 1 Lala and their names may also be directed to be recorded in the revenue papers.

(3.) I have heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 and 5 and I have perused the documents on record.