BHURE Vs. MAULVI HABIBUR RAHMAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, one of whom is a lambardar, Habibur-Rahman Khan, sued the defendants under Section 160 of the Tenancy Act of 1901, for recovery of arrears of revenue paid by them on account of the defendants. The defence was that the defendants were no co sharers to whom the provisions of Section 160 would apply, and that they were not liable to pay any revenue whatsoever, because at the time of the last settlement the liability was fixed on the holders of the khalsa land. The defendants are plot proprietors, that is, they hold specific plots which are assessed to revenue. It appears to have been the opinion of the Board of Revenue previously that such proprietors were not included in the term "co- sharer" as used in Section 159 and the following sections of the Tenancy Act of 1901 This view, however, has been corrected subsequently after the decision by this Court in Murli Dhar V/s. Babu Ram 55 Ind. Cas. 74 : 18 A.L.J. 121 : 2 U.P.L.R (A.) 41 : 42 A. 311; see Umri Kuar V/s. Bijay Bahadur Unpub Dec. of the Board of Revenue Vol, 4 p. 358,.] The Revenue Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) The term of the wajib-ul-arz whose protection the defendants seek may be translated as below:

(3.) "Whatever revenue has been fixed on the part of the Government on haqiyat mutafarriqa" (that is, separate plots of land), "the liability for its payment shall lie on the proprietors of the khalsa land."