BANKEY BEHARI SINGH Vs. RAMSARAN GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under the Letters Patent is by the plaintiffs. The relevant facts are as follows: In execution of a decree for rent the plaintiffs, who are co-sharer landlords, purchased the judgment-debtors holding and obtained delivery of possession. The plaintiffs co-sharers were impleaded in the suit in which this decree was passed. In 1939, an application was made under Section 3, Bakasht Restoration Act, 1938, for restoration of the tenants to possession. This application was granted. The appellants then sued for a declaration that the order of restoration was a nullity and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Alternatively, they claimed arrears of rent for the years 1347-1350. The suit was decreed at first instance, and this decision was confirmed on appeal. The defendants preferred a second appeal to this Court which resulted? in the dismissal of the suit by Ray J. of the several grounds on which the appellants challenged the order of restoration, the only one with which we are now concerned is whether the order was ultra vires. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the order was ultra vires the officer who made it because the application for restoration was not made on behalf of all the dispossessed tenants, and also because the land in dispute was not Bakasht as it had been purchased by only one of the co-sharer landlords in execution of the rent decree.

(2.) In so far as it is relevant for present purposes Section 3 is as follows:

(3.) (1) A raiyat, whose holding or a portion of whose holding was sold in...execution of a decree for arrears of rent and was purchased by the landlord of such holding and is in the possession or under the control of the said landlord, may make an application to the Collector for the restoration to him of such holding or portion. (2) Every application made under Sub-section (1) shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain the following particulars, namely; (i) the name of the landlord of the holding by whom it was purchased; .... (v) such other particulars as may be prescribed. 3. The prescribed form referred to in Sub-section (2) requires the name of the applicant to be stated and at the bottom of the form the applicant's signature. When the application does not comply with the requirements of Sub-section (2) the Collector is empowered by Section 4 (2) to allow the defect to be remedied then and there, or within a time to be fixed by him. The grounds on which the landlord may object to the application are enumerated in Section 6. If the application for restoration is not dismissed summarily on grounds which need not now be stated, the Collector is required by Section 8(1) to determine inter alia the land which is liable to be restored to the raiyat under the provisions of the Act. Section 10(a) provides: When the Collector directs under any of the provisions of this Act that only a part of the holding or portion sold shall be restored to the raiyat, he shall, if the raiyat and the landlord of such holding do not agree as regards the specific plots to be restored, determine the plots which shall be restored to the raiyat. By Section 12(b) it is provided that: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in anything having the-force of law or in any custom, when any land is restored to a raiyat under the provisions of this Act, all such rights as the raiyat had in respect of the said land and the incidents thereof before its sale shall revive.