CHHANGU RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) IN this case the temporary cultivation lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in Samwat year 2027 which was extended for one year i. e. upto Samwat year 2028, thereafter, it was cancelled by the Competent Authority. An appeal against that order was filed and that too came to be dismissed and no further appeal was filed and hence as per that order the petitioner is not entitled to the extention of the temporary cultivation lease, has become final. Even if he has made an application for permanent allotment and even if that application had to be decided under the Rules of 1975 because in that year i. e. 1975 his appeal was pending, then too for regularisation and permanent allotment of land as a holder of temporary cultivation lease, it is necessary that one is a temporary cultivation lease-holder. When he ceases to be a temporary cultivation lease-holder, he is entitled to no relief of regularisation of the land as a temporary cultivation lease-holder. Thereafter, if he is in possession of the land his possession is that of a tress-passer and he continuous in possession in no other character. However, if he is a landless person, he still has a right available to him to apply to the Competent Authority for allotment of the land under the Rules as a landless person because that point has neither been raised before all the three Lower Courts nor it has been decided by them and therefore, we keep this option open for him to apply to the Competent Authority for grant of allotment as a landless person but so far as this judgment of the Revenue Board is concerned which has made him disentitled to the regularisation of his land as a temporary cultivation lease-holder because he ceases to be a lease holder of the temporary cultivation lease, is absolutely just and proper. IN the fact and circumstances of the case, he is entitled to no relief as a temporary cultivation lease holder.