RAM ANAND MURAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Petitioners in the two petitions filed suits in the revenue court for abatement of rent which had been settled by means of agreements between the Petitioners and the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The leases were first executed in 1936 for a period of seven years and the rent payable by the Petitioner in writ case No. 893 of 1955 was fixed at Rs. 73/8/-. After the expiry of seven years, another lease was executed in his favour and the annual rent payable this lime was Rs. 150/. The Petitioners have stated in their affidavits that they have been cultivating these lands for more than twenty years. In any case, there can be no doubt that the leases were first granted in their favour before the U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939 came into force. Soon after obtaining the new leases in 1943 or 1944, the Petitioners filed suits for abatement of rent Under Section 114 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Their case was that the rent was substantially greater than the rent calculated at the sanctioned rates appropriate to them. Both the suits were tried together and they were decreed by the trial court on 10-11-1945 and it substantially reduced the rents agreed upon. The State or the Province of Uttar Pradesh filed appeals against the said decrees before the Commissioner and the Commissioner remanded these cases on the 8th of June 1946 with a direction that the Petitioners should file copies of the Mahalwar Assessment statement with regard to the villages, wherein the lands in suits were situate and then the rent be fixed accordingly. After the remand of the cases, the trial court again decreed them on the 26th July 1949 substantially reducing the rents agreed upon. The State again filed appeals before the Commissioner and the Commissioner dismissed them on the 6th October 1952. The State then went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. One learned Member of the Board heard the appeals and passed an order on the 11th August 1955 saying that in his opinion the appeals should be allowed and the decrees of the courts below be set aside. It was then sent for concurrence to a second learned Member and he gave his concurrence on the 23rd August 1955. Petition No. 893 of 1955 was filed on the 26th September 1955 and petition No 974 was filed on the 12th October 1955. The prayer contained in these petitions is that writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the judgments and decrees of the Board of Revenue.

(3.) The main defence taken before the revenue courts on behalf of the State was that the term of the leases would have preference over the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act because of Section 3 of the Crown Grants Act. The provisions of Section 3 are in the following words: