AMAR SINGH Vs. YOGENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Amitabh Agarwal for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 1.7.2013, rejecting the amendment application dated 1.6.2013, filed by the petitioners for amendment of written statement in Suit No. 77 of 2011, under section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Additional Commissioner dated 28.3.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioners.

(2.) YOGENDRA Singh (respondent -1) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 77 of 2011), under section 176 of the Act, for partition of his share in plot No. 589 (area 0.1600 hectare) of village Bhatona, pargana Agauta, district Bulandshahar. The petitioners filed their written statement on 7.2.2013. Thereafter issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiff was completed on 9.5.2C13. Then 18.5.2013 was fixed for the evidence of the defendants. The petitioners filed an application dated 1.6.2013, for amendment of written statement by adding paragraph -5 -A to the effect that the land in dispute was not used for agricultural purposes and on the spot buildings are existing as such it is not 'land' within the meaning of section 3 (14) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and the suit is not cognizable by Revenue Court and is barred under section 331 -A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute is covered with building and is not used for agricultural purposes, as it is proved from khasra entries as such it is no more 'land' as defined under section 3(14) of the Act. The nature of the land in dispute has already been converted as abadi on the spot, it cannot be treated as 'land' as no part of it is used for agricultural purposes, even in the absence of declaration under section 143 of the Act, Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to partition the abadi and buildings as held by this Court in Panna Lal v. Chhabinath,, 1992 RD 18 Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.,, 2012 (115) RD 549 and Ajaz Carpets (M/s.) v. M/s. Birla International Pvt. Ltd. : 2013 (119) RD 763 Impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside.