RODA RAM Vs. MUKAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision arises out of a suit under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act and the sole question that arises for decision is whether or not the plaintiff was an agriculturist as defined by the said Act. It appears from the finding of the Court below that the plaintiff is the owner of two houses and of the sites thereof within the ambit of the Allahabad Municipality. The area of the sites is recorded in the khasra as 2 biswas and the whole of it is entered as abadi land, It has however been found by the Court below that there is a small kitchen garden on a portion of the site and there are certain flower plants on the same. The Government revenue assessed on the 2 biswaa land is annas 4 pies 3. The learned Judge of the Court below held that as the plaintiff paid the revenue just mentioned, he was an agriculturist in view of the provisions of Section 2(2)(a), Agriculturists Relief Act which provides that "agriculturist" means a person who, in districts not Subject to the Be minis Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1795, pays land revenue not exceeding Rs. 1000 pec annum.

(2.) I am unable to agree with this decision of the Court below. In order to invite the application of the provision just quoted it is essential that the revenue payable must be on account of land. By Section 2(9) it is provided that the word land shall have the same meaning as in the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. By the last mentioned Act land has been defined as meaning land which is let or held for agricultural purposes, cur grove-land or for pasturage." Further it is provided by the Tenancy Act that land does not include land for the time being occupied by dwelling-houses etc. In accordance with the definition of agriculturist in the Agriculturists Relief Act the mere payment of revenue is not enough. In order to entitle a person to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, it is essential that the revenue paid by him should be on account of land as defined in the Agra Tenancy Act. In the present case the revenue payable by the plaintiff was on account of house sites and not on account of land as defined by the Tenancy Act. The revenue payable by the plaintiff was therefore not land revenue within the meaning of Section 2(2)(a), Agriculturists Relief Act. The plaintiff was therefore not an agriculturist and was not entitled to sue under Section 33, Agriculturists Relief Act. Accordingly I allow this application, set aside the order passed by the Court below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit. But under the circumstances of the present case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs of this application.