THAKUR PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly one Chhedi Lal was fixed rate tenant of Plots Nos. 345, 349, 350 and 351. He has since died and petitioner Thakur Prasad being the sisters son is heir of Chhedi Lal. Moti Lal, respondent No. 4 was the subtenant of the said plots. It appears that two suits, namely, suit No. 414 relating to Plot No. 345 and suit No. 418 relating to Plots Nos. 349, 350 and 35l were filed by Chhedi Lal under Sec. 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Both the suits were decreed on 8th of Jan., 1953. The decree-holder started proceedings for execution of the aforesaid two decrees, but the application for execution was stayed and (proceedings) were abated by the Tahsildar. Against the order of the Tahsildar revisions were filed before the Additional Commissioner who by his order dated 6th July, 1968 made references to the Board of Revenue recommending that the revisions should be allowed and the order of abatement of the execution proceedings of the two-decrees should be set aside. The Board of Revenue accepted the references by its order dated 4th of April, 1969. In the meantime Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land' Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force in the disputed locality on the 1st. July, 1965. Sec. 18 (2) of the Act conferred the-rights of Sirdari on the tenant of 'sir' or a sub-tenant. Moti Lal respondent No. 4 thereafter brought a suit under Sec. 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Chhedi Lal on 2nd of Dec., 1970 ' in respect of the said plot on the allegations that Chhedi Lal was a fixed' rate tenant and plaintiff Moti Lal being a sub-tenant became a Sirdar on the advent of the Act and he be declared to be a Sirdar. In case he is found to be out of possession a decree for possession be also granted. The suit was contested by Chhedi Lal on the grounds that no Sirdari rights could accrue to Moti Lal as Chhedi Lal was a disabled person, and that in any case -abatement of the execution proceedings had been set aside by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 4th of April, 1969, and that order of the Board of Revenue became final as no appeal or writ was filed against that order. The Assistant Collector, 1st Class dismissed the suit but on appeal the Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that Chhedi Lal was not disabled person when the land in suit was let out to Moti Lal and on this finding he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. The Second Appeal filed by Chhedi Lal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 14th Aug., 1974. The petitioner who is the heir of Chhedi Lal has come to challenge dismissed the order of the Board of Revenue by filing the present petition.

(2.) The contention raised by Sri . A. N. Bhargava learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue committed a manifest error of law in holding that Moti Lal respondent No. 4 was subtenant on 1st of July, 1965 when the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari . Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 came into force in the locality. It was further contended that Moti Lal respondent No. 4 could not acquire rights of Sirdari under Sec. 18 (2) of the Act.

(3.) On the finding of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner which was upheld by the Board of Revenue, Chhedi Lal was not disabled person when the land was let out to Moti Lal, respondent No. 4, and, therefore, Moti Lal respondent No. 4 was a sub-tenant of Chhedi Lal who was not a diasbled person.