FATEH SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of proceedings for restoration of possession Under Sec. 20/232 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The Appellant claimed that he was recorded in 1356 F. and became an adhivasi Under Clause (i) of Sub -section (b) of Sec. 20. He was, in virtue of a compromise arrived at in some criminal proceedings made to relinquish possession of the land. Since he had become an adhivasi, he was entitled to be restored to possession. This application was contested by Respondents Nos. 4 to 8, who were the tenants in chief. They alleged that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Zamindars, had, in a suit Under Sec. 171 U.P. Tenancy Act, ejected them. They in due course applied for restoration of possession Under Sec. 27(3) of the U.P. Tenancy Amendment Act (No. 10), 1947. That application was allowed and on 27 -3 -1951, they were restored to possession over the plots in dispute. Thereafter some original litigation ensued between the parties, which ended in a compromise, whereunder the Appellant relinquished possession of the land in favour of the Respondents tenants by an application dated 15 -3 -1952. Since the Applicant voluntarily relinquished possession, he was not entitled to restoration of the possession. The Appellant's case that he had become an adhivasi was also contested.

(2.) The trial court rejected the Appellant's claim. It was held that the Appellant had not been ejected from the plots and hence, the application for restoration of possession was incompetent. On appeal, however, it was held that the Appellant was recorded as an occupant in 1356F he became an adhivasi and since he was not in actual possession, when he made the application, it was maintainable. The appeal was allowed and the application was granted.

(3.) The Respondents preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board held that the Appellant became an asami Under Sec. 21(1)(c) of the Act. His claim that he had become an adhivasi was incorrect. On this finding, the application made by the Appellant was dismissed.