BUDDHA Vs. BALA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants prclerred an appeal against the judgment and decree of trial Court. They were unsuccessful. This is their second appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts are as under :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants have raised a new point in this appeal. He contends that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumidharakon ka Udhar Dene Walon ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam 1976. (here in after referred to as the Adhiniyam). An application under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking permission to amend the pleadings and to contend that this is a matter which is required to be gone into by the revenae officer specified in the above Adhiniyam. This application was filed on 17th of March, 1993; At the time of arguments, the attention of the counsel was drawn to the faet that in the application it has simply been : tated that the appellants are owners of less than eight hectares of land and that they have not specified as to whether this is irrigated or unirrigated land and as such, they would not be entitled to the benefit of the 1976 Adhiniyam, unless and until they have a plea is that the Iand in question is unirrigated. Faced with this, another application was filed on 21st of April, 1994. This application has again been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and an averment has now been made that the eight hectares of land is unirrigated. On the basis of the above an argument has been raised that the matter is required to be gone into under the aforementioned Adhiniyam.