SARJOO AND ANOTHER Vs. SAHODRA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the remand order dated Sept. 18, 1964 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in a case under Sec. 240-G/240-H of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the compensation statement in respect of the disputed plots was published in the U.P. Gazette dated Sept. 8, 1956 and was made final on April 30, 1957 and it was held that the interest of Smt. Sahodra had extinguished and she was entitled to compensation only. On May 2, 1961, Smt. Sahodra made an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated April 30, 1957. She alleged that she had no knowledge of the proceedings under Sec. 240-G, and hence she claimed that the proceedings may be decided on merits after considering her objection. Vide his order dated April 13, 1964, the S.D.O.-cum-Compensation Officer rejected Smt. Sahodra's application after holding that Smt. Sahodra will be deemed to have had knowledge of the proceedings under Sec. 240-G with effect from Sept. 8, 1966 when the compensation statement was published in the Gazette. Smt. Sahodra preferred an appeal against this order of the Compensation Officer and the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the same for the reason that an objection in proceedings under Sec. 240-G of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and L.R. Act has to be filed within one month of the date of service of notice issued to the landholder under Rule 193-E of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, and since no such notice was issued or served on Smt. Sahodra, there was no reason to disbelieve Smt. Sahodra's allegation that she came to know of the proceedings in April 1961, and hence Smt. Sahodra's application dated May 2, 1961, for restoration was within time. The learned Additional Commissioner set aside the trial court's ex parte order dated April 30, 1957 and remanded the case to the trial court for decision afresh as under the law after giving Smt. Sahodra an opportunity to file her objection. Sarjoo, son of Khedoo, and Sarda Prasad, son of Kishore, have come up in revision against this order of the lower appellate court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and seen the records of the case. The learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that Smt. Sahodra is not the sole landholder of the disputed plots, and it is possible that a notice may have been issued under Sec. 240-F of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and served on Mangla Prasad, the co-landholder, and, in that case, it will be presumed that Smt. Sahodra had knowledge of the proceedings under Sec. 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. This argument of the learned counsel does not hold any ground. Notice under Sec. 240-F read with Rule 193-E of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has to issue to the recorded landholder. In this case, Smt. Sahodra is the recorded landholder, and no notice under Sec. 240-F of the Act is available on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the required notice was issued to the landholder and was served on her.