RAMANAND RAI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the setting aside of a decision of the Board of Revenue passed in a second appeal and also of the order passed in review. It is also prayed that the order of the Addl. Commr. passed in the first appeal be quashed.

(2.) The Petitioner filed a suit Under Section 183 of the UPT Act for possession of the plots in dispute against the Respondents Nos. 4 to 10. The Petitioner's case was that he was the adopted son of Naurang Rai, the previous tenant of the plots, and the zamindars had wrongfully dispossessed him from the land. The Respondents contested the suit before the Judicial Officer mainly on the ground that the Petitioner was not the adopted son of Naurang Rai and had no right to the possession of the plots. The Judicial Officer, on 5-11-1951, held in favour of the Petitioner on this point and decreed his suit Under Section 183, holding that the Petitioner was the adopted son of Naurang Rai and that he had been wronfully dispossessed by the Defendants. He also allowed certain amount of damages to the Petitioner. The Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 then went up in appeal against this order to the Commissioner. The appeal remained pending before the Commr. till the ZA and LR Act came into force and it was heard and disposed of by him on 11-8-1954. The learned Commr. did not enter into the controversy which was the subject-matter of the decision by the trial court and allowed the appeal only on the ground that the Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 were entered as occupants of these plots in the year 1356 Fasli and had thus acquired the rights of an adhivasi. The Petitioner went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue dismissed that appeal on 13-4-1955.

(3.) It was argued before the Board that in view of the introduction of Explanation IV to Section 20 of the ZA and LR Act, the Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 would not acquire the rights of an adhivasi because they were intermediaries. We might state here that during the pendency of the appeal before the Board of Revenue the ZA and LR Act was again amended and the amendment was by means of UP Act XX of 1054. By Section 4 of this Amending Act a number of amendments were made in Section 20 and one of which was the introduction of Explanation IV. Explanation IV is in the following words: