SURAJ BALI MINOR SON OF LATE JHAGRU THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MST. LULLI ALIAS RAM RAJI (MOTHER) Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P., ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

(2.) On 19-3-56 the petitioner filed a suit against opposite party no. 3 under Sec. 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Zamindari Abolition Act'). In brief, the case of the petitioner was that he was a sirdar of the plots in dispute having succeeded his maternal grandmother Smt. Munni who was previously a hereditary tenant of the plots. Opposite party No. 3 denied that the petitioner was the tenant and claimed the tenancy rights or sirdari rights in himself. The first court framed as many as seven issues in the cases and it decided all of them in favour of the petitioner. As a result of these findings it decreed the suit. Opposite party No, 3 went up in appeal against that order and it appears-that during the course of arguments before the Additional Commissioner a fresh point was taken on behalf of opposite party no. 3. This point was that the petitioner had omitted to make a report to the Panchayat Adalat to the effect that the petitioner had succeeded to the tenancy of his maternal grandmother. In the absence of this report, it was urged that the institution of the suit was barred by the provisions of sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act as amended by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, which came into force on 1-7-52. The Additional Commissioner upheld this contention of opposite party no. 3 and without deciding the appeal on merits, he dismissed it only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to report his succession under Sec. 34 (1) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and consequently he could not file the suit. The petitioner went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. But the Board of Revenue agreed with the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the second appeal: Hence the present writ.

(3.) The only question that arises for decision in this petition is whether the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were justified in holding that the present suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner had failed to make a report to the Panchayati Adalat as required by sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 34 of the. U.P. Land Revenue Act. We have carefully read the judgments of both the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue and heard learned counsel for the parties. We think that there is an apparent error of law committed by both the revenue courts mentioned above.