SARJU PRASAD Vs. CIVIL JUDGE OF FARRUKHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Jagdish Sahai by which he rejected a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT appears that prior to the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the appellant was an occupancy tenant of plot No. 208 of village Atrajpur, Tahsil Chaibramau, District Farrukhabad. The respondent No. 3 was the sub-tenant of the plot on behalf of the appellant and was entered in the papers as bila tasfia lagan. A dispute arose between the parties in respect of possession over the plot, and after proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been started, the dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator decided that the appellant should have possession over half of the plot and the respondent No. 3 should have the other half, & that respondent No. 3 should be treated as a tenant on behalf of the appellant in respect of that half. In spite of the award the dispute between the parties continued. Though the appellant claimed that respondent No. 3 had removed his possession from his half of the plot the respondent No. 3 denied that fact. He claimed to have become the tenant of the entire plot on the ground that he had not actually been ejected from any portion of it and the suit for his ejectment from the apnellant's half share had become time-barred. He filed a civil suit in the court of the Munsif claiming a declaration of his tenancy rights in respect of the plot. This suit was decreed by the trial court. While an appeal against the decree was pending consolidation proceedings were started in the village. An objection under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed in respect of the plot and both the appellant and respondent No. 3 claimed to be entitled to it. This dispute was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge referred the matter to an Arbitrator for decision. The reference was made under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Arbitrator submitted an award. IT was remitted by the Civil Judge to him again as he had left one point undecided. The arbitrator submitted a modified award and that respondent No. 3 had become the sirdar of the plot and the appellant was therefore not entitled to any portion of it. The appellant filed an objection against the award before the Civil Judge and wanted the award to be set aside. The Civil Judge, however, found that the award was a good one and therefore confirmed it and declared respondent No. 3 to be the sirdar of the plot. The appellant then filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen and wanted the award as well as the order of the Civil Judge refusing to set it aside to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. The learned Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing took the view that, because the decision of the Civil Judge was an appealable one, the appellant had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the decision before the District Judge. As he had not pursued that remedy, he could not, it was held, have recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution. On that ground the learned Judge refused to interfere and dismissed the petition.

(3.) THE only question that is to be decided in this appeal, therefore, is whether the order of the Civil fudge was really an appealable order.