ROOREY Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Petitioner filed a suit Under Section 202(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act with the allegation that the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were declared to be sub-tenants of the Petitioner Under Section 27(3) of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, Act No. X of 1947. This declaration was made on the 30th September 1948 entitling the Respondents to remain in possession for a period of three years. That period expired and the Petitioner was entided to eject the Respondents as they had acquired the rights of asami and were liable to ejectment, one of the defences taken by the Respondents was that the Petitioner had not executed his order of reinstatement passed in his favour Under Section 27(3) of the U.P. Act No. X of 1947. The first court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 16th December 1952. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal by his order dated 13th January 1955. The Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 then went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue set aside the decree of the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Trial Court dismissing the Petitioner's suit. This was the decision of one of the Members of the Board given on the 20th April 1955. He was of the opinion that the matter should be laid for concurrence before another Member. The case then went to another Member and the other Member came to the conclusion that no such concurrence was necessary as the case would not be governed by paragraphs Nos. 170 and 190 of the Revenue Court Manual, the case being one under the zamindari Abolition Act and not under the U.P. Tenancy Act or the Land Revenue Act. With the above remarks he returned the papers to the first Member. The first Member, it appears then declared the appeal allowed by his order dated 11th July 1955. In the present petition it is prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued fordoing justice to the Petitioner's case".

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the opinion of the Board of Revenue that it was necessary to execute the order passed under Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of Act No. X of 1947 was erroneous and the Petitioner should be deemed to have acquired the rights of a tenant in spite of his commission to execute the order of reinstatement. The other point argued is that the appeal could not have been allowed by the Board of Revenue without the concurrence of two Members and the opinion of the second Member given on the 29th May 1955 was wrong in law.