BHAWANI PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of a suit under section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act.

(2.) THE plaintiff opposite party had claimed sirdari light in the disputed plot no. 338/2 and that the defendant had dispossessed the plaintiff, hence the suit. THE claim of the plaintiff opposite party was contested by the defendant petitioner on various grounds. One of the pleas raised was that the disputed land was not agricultural land and there existed constructions due to which the disputed land under went a change and acquired the character of Abadi.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff contesting opposite party has emphasized in reply that when the plaintiff opposite party filed a suit in the Civil Court a plea was raised by the defendant petitioner to the effect that the civil court had no jurisdiction and when the revenue courts have decreed the plaintiffs' suit the defendant petitioner is raising a plea regarding jurisdiction of the revenue courts which is not fair and proper hence the same should not be entertained at the stage of writ. It has also been suggested that the question of jurisdiction in the circumstances of the present case cannot be entertained at the instance of the defendant petitioner due to bar of the principle of res judicata. He has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1979 AWC page 635, Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh. He has also emphasized that the defendant petitioner has failed to show any failure of justice due to the decrees passed by the revenue courts hence the plea regarding jurisdiction should not be entertained at the stage of writ in view of the provisions of Section 331 (1-A) of the UP ZA and LR Act.