RAM NATH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed against the orders passed by the Judicial Officer, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad in a suit under Section 224 -B/209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by the Petitioners against Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners was heard in support of the writ petition and the petition was ordered to be dismissed summarily on 30 -8 -84. However, the reasons were to follow later on.

(2.) THE Petitioners filed a suit alleging that they were Sirdars along with Mohan and the land was ancestral and the other Defendants had no concern with the land in dispute. It was alleged that the Petitioners were the exclusive tenure holders of the land in dispute. In the alternative it was prayed that Hari Lal, opposite party No. 4 may be ejected.

(3.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the judgment of the Board of Revenue was no judgment in the eyes of law as it was not a judgment signed, dated and pronounced by the Board of Revenue in open court, inasmuch as the Board of Revenue had heard the counsel for the parties on 12 -1 -84 and thereafter 19 -1 -84 was the date fixed for delivery of judgment. But on that date the judgment could not be delivered and the Court passed an order that the judgment would be pronounced on some further date. The judgment was, however, delivered on 7 -2 -84, about which no notice were given to the parties. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the decisions in Kharak Singh v. Lachhan Singh : AIR 1925 All. 293 and in Surrendra Singh v. State of U.P. : AIR 1954 SC 194.