RAM RAJ Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri T. B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THOUGH the case has been taken up in the revised list but no one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Section 331-A of the Act reads as follows: 331-A. Procedure when plea of land being used for agricultural purposes is raised in any suit.- (1) If in any suit, relating to land held by a bhumidhar, instituted in any Court the question arises or is raised whether the land in question is or is not used for pur poses connected with agriculture; horticul ture or animal husbandry which includes pis ciculture and poultry framing and a declara tion has not been made in respect of such land under Section 143 or 144 the Court shall frame an issue on the question and send the record to the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division for the decision of that issue only: Provided that where the suit has been instituted in the Court of Assistant Collector in charge of the sub- division, it shall proceed to decide the question in accordance with the provisions of Section 143 or 144, as the case may be. (2) The Assistant Collector in charge of the sub- division after reframing the issue, if necessary, shall proceed to decide such issue in the manner laid down for the making of a declaration under Sections 143 or 144, as the case may be and return the record together with his finding thereon to the Court which referred the issue. (3) The Court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub division on the issue referred to it. (4) The finding of the Assistant Collec tor in charge of the sub-division on the issue referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal be deemed to be part of the finding of the Court which referred the issue.