ASHARFI LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants challenging the orders of the Revenue Courts decreeing the Respondents' suit for Appellants' ejectment under Section 209 of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act).

(2.) THE admitted facts which emerge from the findings of the court below, are that plots Nos. 868 and 869 situate in Qasba Roorkee district Saharanpur was under the hereditary tenancy of Pancham Singh. On 10th August 1959 Pancham Singh executed a registered lease -deed in favour of Narain Das predecessor -in interest of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 letting out the said two plots to Narain Das for a period of five years. Narain Das obtained possession over the plots in dispute. Later on, Pancham Singh filed a civil suit in the court of Munsif for the cancellation of the lease -deed as well as for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining Narain Das from interfering with his possession over the plot in suit. Narain Das resisted the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit. The findings of the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court as well as by the High Court in Second Appeal. During the period of the aforesaid litigation, proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were taken and the crops standing on the land in dispute were attached under a preliminary order issued by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate on May 12, 1961. Those proceedings terminated in favour of the Appellants and possession of the crops was handed over to the Appellants on 4th August 1961. On 17th December 1963, Narain Das filed a suit under Section 209 of the 1957 Act against the Appellants for their ejectment from the plots in dispute on the pleadings that under Section 18(2) of the 1957 Act he had acquired Sirdari rights and he was entitled to regain possession from the Appellants whose possession was otherwise than in accordance with law. The suit was resisted by the Appellants who claimed that they had acquired Sirdari rights under Section 18(1) of the 1957 Act and their possession over the plots in dispute was not otherwise than in accordance with law. The trial court decreed the Respondent's suit and passed a decree for ejectment against the Appellants. On appeal, the Commissioner as well as as the Board of Revenue, affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Thereafter, the Appellants filed a writ petition in this Court challenging orders of the revenue courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) SECTION 18 is in the following words: