U.P. STATE GOVERNMENT Vs. PRAYAG NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are stated in the order of the learned District Judge. It appears that Prayag Narain was an intermediary in village Jainpur, pergana Khairabad, tahsil and district Sitapur. Smt. Ram Piari was holding some land from the intermediary at a rent of Rs. 341- per annum. She had been holding the land from a period subsequent to 1355 Fasli. She made an application for conferment of bhumidhari rights on her and then acting under the provisions of Sec. 7 (1) (b) of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, U.P. Act X of 1949, the rent payable by her was determined at hereditary rates applicable at the said date i. e. at Rs. 82|3.00, this amount being higher than the rent agreed upon between her and Prayag Narain, the intermediary. She thereupon made the necessary deposits and on 10th Nov., 1951 she was declared a bhumidhar of the lands in question. Subsequent to this date she paid the rent to the intermediary at the rate of Rs. 41|1|6 for one Fasli year and also deposited rent in the tahsil at the same rate for the following year, that is, the year after the zamindari had vested in the State Government.

(2.) Subsequently when the question of determination of the compensation pay-able to the intermediary came up, it was urged on behalf of the State that compensation should be paid on the basis that the rent payable by Smt. Ram Piari was Rs. 34.00. The intermediary urged that he was entitled to compensation on the basis that the rent payable was Rs. 82|3.00. The Compensation Officer, Sitapur, decided against the intermediary. Thereupon an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Sitapur. The appeal was numbered as Appeal no. 3 of 1954. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal and directed that compensation be calculated treating the rent payable by Ram Piari to be Rs. 82|3.00. Similar questions arose in the two connected appeals from which Second Appeals Nos. 442 and 443 of 1954 arise. In both these appeals also the learned District Judge decided the matter against the State Government. In both those appeals the same amounts was involved. Against that judgment the State Government filed a second appeal. This came up before a learned single judge of this Court and by an order dated 21st April, 1955 in view of the importance of the question the matter has been refer-red to a Division Bench, and it is thus that it is before us.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.