RAGHUBIR SAHAI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts stated in the instant petition filed under section 226 of the Constitution are these. THE petitioner had filed a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 18-5-1964 against the opposite party No. 4 for declaration that the petitioner was Sirdar of plot No. 3076 having an area of 0. 53 decimals in the court of Judicial Officer, Bahraich. That suit was dismissed on 6-3-1965. THE petitioner then filed an appeal in the court of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, which was allowed on 10-6-1965, vide Annexure No. 1. THE petitioner was then recorded as Sirdar in respect of the said plot in the revenue papers. However, after six months of the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, the petitioner came to know that his aforesaid plot No. 3076 was declared surplus land of the opposite-party No. 4 along with other land of the said opposite-party. THE petitioner then filed an objection under section 14 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Prescribed Authority (Opposite-Party No. 2) which was allowed and his plot was excluded from the land declared as surplus land of the opposite-party No. 4. It may be mentioned here that this fact has been denied by the State in the counter-affidavit. Later on, the Additional District Magistrate, Bahraich passed an order on 2-3-1977 declaring the plot No. 3076 as surplus land of Smt. Manwati Devi. THE petitioner filed his objections before the Additional District Magistrate contending that he had already filed a suit u/Sec. 229-B as aforesaid and he had been declared Sirdar of the said plot. He also contended that his objections under section 14 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act had been allowed and so the said plot under no circumstances be declared as surplus land of Smt. Manwati Devi. THE Additional District Magistrate rejected that objection. THE petitioner then filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Bahraich. THE learned District Judge found merits in the contentions of the petitioner but rejected the appeal on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. THE petitioner has now impugned the said order of the learned District Judge as also the order of the Additional District Magistrate in this petition. THE petition has been opposed.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit it has been admitted that the petitioner had filed a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 18-5-1964 in which Smt. Manwati, State of U. P. and Gaon Sabha, Mohammad Nagar were parties. It has, however, been denied that the said suit related to the land in suit because there was nothing on the case file to prove the fact. The opposite-parties have also admitted in the counter-affidavit that an appeal was filed in the court of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, which was allowed and that the petitioner was recorded as Sirdar in respect of the land in dispute under the orders of the Judicial Officer, Bahraich, dated 10-6-1965.

(3.) IN the result, the petition is allowed with costs and the order dated 11-7-1978 of the District Judge, Bahraich as also the order dated 13-10-1977 of the Additional District Magistrate, Bahraich contained in Annexure Nos. 3 and 2 respectively to the writ petition are quashed.