RAGHUBAR Vs. GANGA PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or some other suitable writ quashing the judgment of the Board of Revenue in Petition No. 12 of 1955-56 dated the 23rd June, 1956. The applicant further prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other suitable writ or direction to the Board to readmit the applicant's petition in revision and to decide it according to law.

(2.) The applicant claims to be the adhivasi of plots Nos. 446, 983, 1093, 1384 and 1131 of village Mahlai, Paragana Shamshabad East, District Farrukhabad on the ground that he was an occupant of the plots and had been recorded as being in possession in 1356 F in the khatauni. He alleged that he had been forcibly dispossessed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1358F. He, therefore, applied under Sec. 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being put back in possession of the plots. The application was treated as a suit (Case No. 12 of 1954) and was contested by the opposite parties on the ground that the applicant could not claim to be the adhivasi of the plots because he had not been in possession in 1356F and had some how got his name recorded in the papers as a result of collusion with the patwari. The opposite parties raised a preliminary objection also. That objection was that on his own showing the applicant had been dispossessed out of a Court and therefore, he could not take any advantage of Sec. 232 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. That section, it was contended, could apply only to a person who had been ejected through Court.

(3.) The trial court rejected the preliminary objection and held in favour of the applicant on the questions that he was in possession in 1356F and that he could claim to be the adhivasi of the plots. That Court, therefore, allowed the application of the applicant. The opposite parties went up in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal No. 12 of 1954-55). The Commissioner did not go into the question of possession or dispossession. It was urged before him that as the opposite parties had become bhumidhars and had a right superior to that of the applicant even if he was held to be the adhivasi, the applicant could not dispossess the opposite parties. This plea found favour with the Commissioner and without going into the other questions or recording any findings in respect of them he allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant's application. The applicant then filed a Second Appeal in the Board of Revenue. Taking the view that no Second Appeal lay, the appeal filed by the applicant was treated as an application in revision. The Board of Revenue too did not record any findings in respect of the questions of fact that were involved in the case. It also did not record any definite finding on the question whether the rights of the opposite parties as bhumidhars were to prevail over the adhivasi rights claimed by the applicant. The preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties in the trial court which had been rejected by the trial court found favour with the Board of Revenue and it held that under Sec. 232 of the Act an application could be filed only by an adhivasi who had been ejected through court. As the applicant had not been ejected through court but had been ejected from the plots without the intervention of the court, he could not maintain the application under Sec. 232 of the Act. The Board, therefore, dismissed the application in revision of the applicant.