RANNO DEVI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 2.11.1995 whereby it allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner.

(2.) The dispute relates to the defendants inter se. Briefly stated, the facts are that Bhairo Lal Sahi, Batuk Lal Sahi and Anand Bhairo Lal Sahi filed suit No. 19 of 1962 against two sets of defendants. One Smt. Kallo Devi petitioner (defendant No. 1 in the suit) and the second set Shri Singh. Rameshwar Singh and Saklu Singh, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 alleging therein that the land in dispute was their khudkasht land before the date of vesting and after abolition of Zamindari, they became bhumidhars. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 (petitioner) was engaged by the plaintiffs in year 1367F to look after the crops over the disputed land for one year but she managed to get her name recorded in the revenue papers and took possession in collusion with the Lekhpal over the disputed land in 1367F and he illegally recorded her name in Class 9 and after getting her name recorded, she came in possession over the disputed land on 15.10.1961. As regards defendant Nos. 2 to 4, it was alleged that they were neither in possession over the land in dispute nor had they any concern over the same but since they were ready to take forcible possession, they were impleaded as parties to the suit. It was prayed that the defendant No. 1 be evicted from the land in dispute and if the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were found in possession, they should also be evicted from the land in dispute.

(3.) The petitioner contested the suit. She denied that the plaintiffs were khudkasht holder on the date Immediately before the date of vesting. She claimed that the land was settled in the name of her husband at the rate of Rs. 300 per year 13-14 years ago and since then the husband of the petitioner continued in possession over the land in dispute and after his death she is continuing in possession and her name was mutated in the revenue records. Her husband was also in possession in 1356 and 1359F and continued in possession and was sirdar of the land in dispute. She claimed that she has matured her right and the plaintiffs had not acquired any right over the disputed land under Section 18 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. She further pleaded that she had filed civil suit for permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 2 to 4. It was decreed by the trial court and the Judgment was affirmed up to the High Court.