BUDHU SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are ten connected writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, in which common questions of law arise and they may conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) One Ahmadi Begam was the zamindar of the plots in dispute in all the ten petitions, and she claimed that the plots were her khudkasht dots The petitioners in the petitions claimed to be the tenants of different plots owned by Ahmadi Begam. She accordingly filed ten suits under Section 63 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for a declaration that the plots were her khudkasht plots that the petitioners were not the tenants of these plots and that they were all in her possession. The petitioners denied that the plots were khudkasht plots of Ahmadi Begam and set up tenancy rights in different) plots in themselves. Ahmadi Begam died during the pendency of the suits and 2nd respondent was impleaded as her legal representative. The suits were filed in the year 1945, but they remained pending for a long time in the trial Court, During their pendency, the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act of 1949, (hereinafter called the Acquisition of Privileges Act), came into force, and the defendants in the ten suits, who are the petitioners before us, deposited ten times the rent of the plots that they were claiming, and obtained certificates under Section 6 of the Act. The certificates were obtained by the petitioners in September and October, 1949. The 2nd respondent then filed applications under Section 12 of the Acquisition of Privileges Act for cancellation of the certificates. The Assistant Collector allowed the applications and cancelled the certificates but an appeal by the petitioners the Additional Commissioner took a different view. By his judgment dated 3rd July, 1951 he allowed the appeals and dismissed the applications made by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of the certificates. The copies of this judgment were filed in the ten suits under Section 63 of the U P. Tenancy Act pending before the Judicial Officer. On the 1st July 1952 the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Act No. 1 of 1951, (hereinafter called the Zamindari Abolition Act) came into force. The Judicial Officer decided these ten suits on the 1st June 1953. He held that the plots in dispute were the khadkasht plots of the 2nd respondent, and the petitioners were not the tenants of any of the plots, nor were they in possession of the plots. The petitioners filed appeals against the decrees in the ten suits, and the Additional Commissioner affirmed the findings of the Judicial Officer and dismissed the appeals on the 13th August 1954. The petitioners then filed ten second appeals before the Board of Revenue and the Board has dismissed all these, appeals by its judgment dated 30th August, 1955. The petitioners now pray for the quashing of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, mentioned above and for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Board directing it, to decide the second appeals in accordance with law.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have urged two points in support of their petitions. The first point is that the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 3rd July 1951 dismissing the application of the 2nd respondent for the cancellation of the certificates, filed under Section 12 of the Acquisition of Privileges Act. has the force of res judicata in so far as the question whether the petitioners were tenants of the plots was concerned. The second point is that the petitioners have acquired rights under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, and the revenue Courts should have decided this question.