HEMLATA WALIA Vs. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION RISHIKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the or der dated 06-08-2005, passed by District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2005, whereby the order of temporary injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff (present respondent no. 2) by trial court, is affirmed.

(3.) I have examined the objection raised by the learned counsel for the pe titioners. The object of U. P Act No. 1 of 1951 is to abolish the Zamindari from the agricultural land. The legislature has intended that the intermediaries should be removed and they be not permitted to get the cultivation done through the tenants admitted by them. Had the land in suit been used for agricultural pur poses, what learned counsel for the pe titioners has argued could have been accepted. But from the lease deed, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, it is clear that the parties to the lease have admitted that the land was not being used for the purposes con nected with agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture or poul try forms. Rather it is admitted to the parties, as mentioned in the lease deed, that the land was being used to run a restaurant. That being so, it cannot be said that in respect of such a land which is being used for commercial purposes other than the purposes of agriculture etc. , is covered by Section 156 and 165 of U. P Act No. 1 of 1951.