FATTA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Petitioner Fatta was a tenant of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. He was ejected for non-payment of arrears of rent and an instalment of rent for the next year Under Section 163 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Later on, he brought a suit Under Section 183 of that Act for regaining possession on the ground that his ejectment was illega1. This suit was decreed by the trial court on 10-7-1947 and the Petitioner took possession in execution of the decree, and his name was entered in the village records as a tenant. Against this decree an appeal was filed by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 17-4-1948, that is before the commencement of the Fasli year 1356. The Petitioner went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue and also applied for an order that he may not be dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal. The Board granted the stay order. By virtue of this stay order the Petitioner continued in possession of the holding in the year 1356F. and his name was also recorded as a tenant in possession in that year. Ultimately the second appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue in February 1952, that is before the vesting order under the Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1951, was passed. The opposite parties applied for restitution of possession Under Section 144. Code of Civil Procedure, because the Petitioner's appeal had been dismissed. Restitution was allowed and possession over the holding was restored to the opposite parties on 17-5-1952, that is before the vesting order was made under the Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(3.) Thereafter the Petitioner brought a suit Under Section 232 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act for possession against the opposite parties on the ground that he had acquired adhivasi rights Under Section 20 of that Act by reason of his name being recorded as an occupant in the year 1356F. This suit was resisted by the opposite parties and was decreed by the first court, but was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal as well.