NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, ALLAHABAD Vs. AMAR PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, instituted a suit for the ejectment of the respondent under Sec. 175, U. P. Tenancy Act. Its case was that it had let out the land to the respondent under a deed of lease dated June 5, 1945 for a period of 15 years. The period had expired and the Mahapalika wanted possession of the land for its own use. The suit was contested on the ground that the defendant had acquired hereditary tenancy rights. It was also pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the Zamindari Abolition Act applied to the land in suit on which the defendant had become sirdar. The trial court held that the land was acquired by the Mahapalika under the Land Acquisition Act in 1915 for a public purpose for the trenching ground of the Allahabad Municipality. The acquisition came within the purview of clause (of Sec. 8 of the Municipalities Act and so it fell within clause (d) of Sec. 30 of the U. P. Tenancy Act where under hereditary tenancy rights could not accrue in such land. It was also held that the land having been acquired for a public purpose, it fell within the purview of clause (3) of Sec. 30 and for that reason also the land was outside the purview of Sec. 29. On this ground also hereditary tenancy rights did not accrue to the defendant. The trial court observed that the only ground on which jurisdiction was challenged was that the land lies, in city area within municipal limits, hence U. P. Tenancy Act does not apply and the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit under Sec. 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The trial court found that the land in dispute being within municipal limits, the Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply. It was held that the defendant was a non-occupancy tenant liable to be ejectment. On these grounds the suit was decreed.

(2.) The defendant went up in appeal. The only point argued in appeal was that the defendant acquired hereditary tenancy rights under Sec. 29 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The Additional Commissioner repelled this submission. He held that the land having been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act was acquired for a public purpose and so Sec. 30(3) clearly applied and no hereditary tenancy rights accrued. The appeal was dismissed. The respondent then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The same was dismissed summarily. There also the only point urged was as to the applicability of Sec. 30 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.

(3.) The defendant respondent then instituted a writ petition in this Court. In the body of the writ petition nothing was stated in respect of the question of jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit. At the hearing of the writ petition it appears to have been argued that the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applied to the land in dispute and so the suit under the U.P. Tenancy Act was not maintainable. A learned single Judge held that there was nothing on the record to suggest that on 7th July, 1949, the village where the land in dispute was situate was comprised in the municipal area of Allahabad. Therefore the exception in Sec. 2 (i) of the Zamindari Abolition Act was not applicable. He also found that there was nothing to show that the land in question was included in the municipal trenching ground so as to apply the exception contained in "Sec. 2(1 (c) of the Act. On these findings it was held that the suit was not maintainable under the Tenancy Act because that Act had been repealed by the Zamindari Abolition Act. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders were quashed. Aggrieved, the Nagar Mahapalika has come up in appeal.