AFZALUNNISA W/O SHAH TAQI HAIDER R/O TAKIA SHAIF, QASBA AND PARGANA KAKORI, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT LUCKNOW Vs. DWARIKA S/O TIKA AHEER R/O BHAWANI KHERA HAMLET OF VILLAGE KAKORI, PARGANA KAKORI, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for the quashing of certain orders of respondents No. 5 and 6 the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, and the Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, certified copies of which are contained in annexures 3 and 4 accompanying the affidavit in support of the petition.

(2.) There was a grove, according to the petitioner's case, on plots No. 1699, 1700 and 1702. The grove belonged to Shah Mustafa Haider, Shah Mujtaba Haider, Shah Ali Haider and Srimati Azizunnisan. Shah Ali Haider made a charitable waqf of his share and appointed Shah Mustafa Haider as its mutwalli. By the year 1358 Fasli, it is asserted, the grove lost its character as such. The plots were then leased out to the petitioner on an annual rent of Rs. 40.00 under a deed of lease dated June 25, 1951. In the year 1364, it is alleged, the respondent No. 1 took illegal possession of the plots. A suit had to be filed by the petitioner under Sec. 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 respondent No. 2 being the Gram Samaj and No. 3 being the state of U.P. The suit was contested by respondent. No. 1 who claimed himself to be hereditary tenant saying that he had taken the land from Shah Mustafa Haider long time ago. The Judicial Officer, before whom the suit came up for hearing, decreed the suit. An appeal, however, was allowed by the Additional Commissioner and the' decision of the Additional Commissioner was confirmed in second appeal by the Board of Revenue, they being respondents No. 5 and 6. The Additional Commissioner has based his judgment on a finding that though the grove continued till 1353 Fasli where the name of Hub Lal Lodh whose name had appeared earlier in 1351 Fasli was entered, it ceased to be a grove thereafter and it was from 1354 Fasli that Dwarika, respondent No. 1, came into possession. The entries in his name continued in the years 1355,1356,1357 & 1358 Fasli. In the year 1359 Fasli, however, as appears from the original Khasra, his name was entered and then scored out and the petitioner's without any ones signature being there or reference of any other name entered instead. On this evidence he held that opposite party No. 1 had been occupying the land in 1354 Fasli and had acquired valuable rights therein for himself and the ex-intermediaries had no rights to super enforce another tenant who was their own mother over the head of the sitting tenant. It is in these circumstances that the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(3.) The only ground that has been urged before me for the purpose of quashing that order is that there has been a misreading of the entries by the Additional Commissioner. When the entries in the name of Dwarika exist, the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to interpret those entries. It may be regarding which it is not necessary to express any opinion that the entries had been misinterpreted but it was within the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue to consider the effect of those entries on the facts of the case. There has, therefore, been no exceeding the jurisdiction by them nor can it be said to be an error of law apparent on the face of the record.