SHITAB SINGH Vs. SURAJ BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The applicants, Shitab Singh, Bhola Singh and Sheo Baksh Singh pray that the order of allotment to the opposite parties of certain agricultural lands passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, on 4-4-1951, under Section 3, Land Utilisation Act (V of 1948) be cancelled and the petitioners be permitted to retain the plots to which the aforesaid order related. Section 3 of the Act provides that

(3.) The petitioners maintain that they are tenants of the lands under leases issued to them by the landlords on 2-7-1950, and 18-10-1950, before the notice under Section 3. From the documents filed by the petitioners it appears that the landlords did not produce the leases when they appeared in response to the notice under Section 3 and were called upon to produce them. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, came to the conclusion that the landlords' allegation that the land had already been let out was without substance and held that the plots were in fact vacant. He accordingly leased them out to the opposite-parties, Suraj Mal and Prabhu Dayal. The petitioners then came on the scene and filed fresh objections on the basis of the leases mentioned above alleging that they were holding some of the lands and cultivating them since July and others since October 1950 when they were admitted to tenancy by the landlord. The Deputy Commissioner refused to accent the assertion. He observed that the landlords' failure to produce the leases and the fact that the petitioners did not file any extract from the village records to show that they had been cultivating the land from before indicated that the leases upon which they relied were fictitiously made and this was a 'belated move on behalf of the landlords to get back the land'.