RUP NARAIN SINGH Vs. JAGRUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have not troubled the counsel for the respondent as after hearing Dr. Agarwala at length and after going through the judgment of the lower appellate Court, I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the Courts below is perfectly correct and ought to be affirmed.

(2.) The controversy centres round certain land that ha on the findings of the lower appellate Court, been under the control of the Military Authorities for a long time and was first used as a camping ground and later as a rifle range. The land is situated in the district of Benares, It was acquired by the Government for military purposes long ago, and is abundantly clear, from the findings of the lower appellate Court, that the land has never been abandoned by the Military Authorities, and is administered by the Cantonment Authorities acting directly under the control of the Government of India and under the Local Government. It appears that at the time of the acquisition of the land, of which the land in dispute forms a part, the Secretary of State for India or the Government of India agreed to make a remission of Rs. 2,101-9-0 from the entire revenue assessed on the taluqa of which the land acquired formed a part and further agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 135 as malikhana to the co-sharers of the village. A reference to the halath- i-dehi of the village in question shows that the co-sharers of the taluqa are under a liability to pay the entire revenue assessed on the mahal minus a sum of Rs. 2,101-9-0 that was remitted as representing the revenue in respect of the area acquired. It is true that in the Khewat of 1291 F. Kaisar-i-Hind Bahadur ( Emperor of India is shown as a pattidar of the area) acquired, and in the column of revenue a sum of Rs. 2,101-9-0 is recorded as the revenue with respect to that area. Butt that entry does not show that the revenue so recorded was ever intended to be paid or was ever paid by the Military Authorities who, as already stated administered the acquired area under the direct control of the Government of India. A lease of the land in dispute was given to the plaintiff by the Cantonment Authorities, and the plaintiff's case was that the defendant was a sub-tenant holding under him and was liable to ejectment, and a six months notice expiring with the end of the years of the tenancy was served on the defendant asking him to quit possession of the land, and as the defendant had not delivered possession to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellant inter alia on the ground that he had by cultivating the land for more than 12 years acquired an occupancy right in the land in dispute and as such was not liable to ejectment. This was the only point argued before me in appeal and as such I am not concerned with the remaining points urged in the written statement.

(3.) It does not appear to have been disputed that the defendant-appellant had been in possession of the land in dispute for a period of more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. But the contention of the plaintiff-respondent was that the defendant could not, in view of the provisions of Section 1(2) and Section 11(e) of the Tenancy Act, acquire occupancy rights in the land in dispute. This contention of the plaintiff has been accepted by the lower appellate Court and in my judgment, the conclusion at which the lower appellate Court has arrived is correct. It having been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that the administration of the land in dispute is made by the Cantonment Authorities acting directly under the Authority of the Government of India.