MULAYAM SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT Dulari Kuer respondent No. 3. sued for the ejectment of the appellants under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition Act. on the ground that the appellants were asamis and that the plaintiff needed the land for personal cultivation. In defence, it was pleaded that the defendants had acquired here ditary tenancy rights and as such they became sirdars. They were not liable to ejectment as asamis.

(2.) THE trial Court held that the defendants were in possession of the plots in dispute as trespassers from 1355 F. They were recorded as occu pants in 1356 F. They continued to re main in possession ever since. Since no suit for their ejectment under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act was filed within the prescribed period of limita tion, the defendants became hereditary tenants under Section 180 (2) of the Tenancy Act. As hereditary tenants, they acquired sirdari rights under the Zamindari Abolition Act. They were not asamis. On these findings the suit was dismissed. The findings were affirm ed, on appeal, by the Additional Com missioner. The plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. Sri S. N. Mitra. Member Board of Revenue, in his order dated 14th August 1961. held that possession of the defendants began from 1355 F.. when the plaintiff was a widow. If she had not been a widow, the defendants would have acquired hereditary tenancy rights under Section 180 (2) of the Tenancy Act and would have become sirdars on the date of vest ing but under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Zamindari Abolition Act. the defendants would not acquire any other rights than those of asami. On this view, he pro posed to allow the appeal and decree the suit. It appears that the defendants filed an objection to the proposed order of Sri Mitra.

(3.) THE defendants came to this Court by way of a writ petition. A learned single Judge held that the de fendants had filed an objection, but they did not appear before Sri Ram Kinkar Singh, even though they had full know ledge of the date. They were guilty of extreme negligence in prosecuting their case. Even if there was any error of law in the order of the Board of Reve nue, the petitioners being guilty of negligence in prosecuting the case and not putting their version before the se cond Member, no writ could be granted in their favour. On this view, the writ petition was dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Aggrieved, the defen dants have preferred this appeal.