Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. U. Beg, J.
MATA PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
DEWAKAR BHARTI - Respondents
Writ Petn. 277 Of 1960
Decided On : 05/20/1963
U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 232 - APPLICATION FOR RETAINING POSSESSION - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - ERROR OF LAW - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER 20, RULE 1 C.P.C. - SECOND APPEAL - GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 100 C.P.C. - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 232 - POSSESSION ALREADY HELD BY APPLICANT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the order of the Board of Revenue dismissing his appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the order of the trial court in an application under Section 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The Board of Revenue, however, allowed the second appeal filed before it on the ground that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board's order was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record as it was based on a misapprehension of the contents of the affidavit and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The court also held that the limitation should be deemed to commence from the date of knowledge of the order by the petitioner, considering the circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer. Additionally, the court observed that the Board had erred in upsetting the finding of fact given by the first appellate court, which was not permissible at the stage of second appeal in the absence of any grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the Board's order was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record? 2. Whether the limitation should commence from the date of knowledge of the order by the petitioner? 3. Whether the Board erred in upsetting the finding of fact given by the first appellate court? 4. Whether the application under Section 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was maintainable, considering that the applicant was already in possession of the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Board's order was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record as it was based on a misapprehension of the contents of the affidavit and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. 2. The court held that the limitation should be deemed to commence from the date of knowledge of the order by the petitioner, considering the circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer. 3. The court held that the Board had erred in upsetting the finding of fact given by the first appellate court, which was not permissible at the stage of second appeal in the absence of any grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the maintainability of the application under Section 232 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, considering that the point might be the subject matter of further consideration by the Revenue Courts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Board of Revenue, and directed that a writ of certiorari quashing the said order of the Board should be issued. The applicants in the writ petitions were entitled to their costs against opposite party No. 1.
( 1 ) THIS judgment governs the following writ petitions: 1. Writ Petition No. 273 of 1960 Mata Prasad v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors.
( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 276 of 1960 Baldeo Singh v. Matiant Dewakar Bharti and Ors.
( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 277 of 1960 Dhan Prasad Singh v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors.
( 4 ) WRIT Petition No. 278 of I960 Deep Narain Singh v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors. As the facts relating to all the aforementioned four cases are identical, Writ Petition No. 273 of 1960 (Mata Prasad v. Mahant Dewakar Bharti and Ors.) shall be treated as the leading case, and the judgment will be given with reference to the facts stated in this Writ Petition. The four petitioners in these writ petitions mentioned above were all opposite parties in an application under Section 232 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act made by opposite party No. 1, namely, Mahant Dewakar Bharti. This application purported tb be one under Section 20/232 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was filed in the Court of the sub-Divisional Officer, Balrampur on the 24th of December, 1963. It related to certain tenancy plots situate in village Sanda, Pargana and Tahsil Balrampur, District Gonda. In this application opposite party No. 1 alleged that he was in possession of the plots in dispute since before 1356f. and had become the Sirdar of the said plots. In any event he was the Adhivasi of the plots in dispute; he was therefore, entitled to retain possession of the said plots. This application was contested by Mata Prasad, Baldeo Singh, Dhan Prasad Singh and Deep narain Singh all of whom figured as opposite parties hi the said application. After a protracted trial and numerous adjournments in the said case, the Court heard final arguments on the 13th of august, 1957. Thereafter there were no less than eight adjournments. On the 13th of August, 1957 the petitioner Mata Prasad attended the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balrampur who is opposite party No. 2 in the writ petition. On that date the Court fixed 24th of September, 1957 for delivery of judgment. No judgment was, however, delivered in the case on that date, and the case was adjourned for delivery of judgment to another date. In this manner there were four successive adjournments for delivery of judgment. The petitioner attended the Court on all those dates, but no judgment was pronounced on any of those dates. The petitioner last attended the Court on 8-1-1958. The allegation in the writ petition and the affidavit accompanying the same is that on that date the petitioner made a verbal complaint about the frequent adjournments in the case and unnecessary expenses incurred by the petitioner in having unnecessarily to come to the Court for the purpose of hearing the order. Thereafter the parties were assured that they would be informed about the orders as soon as the same were passed by the Court. Acting on that assurance the petitioner stopped going to the Court believing that he would be informed about the order if and when the same was passed. Thereafter the petitioner never received any information from the Court in respect of the order passed in the case. On the 2nd of june, 1958 for the first time the petitioner learnt that the final older was passed by the trial Court in the case on the 17th of March, 1958. On the same day the Court had also given a direction to the effect that the parties were to be informed about the order. In spite of the aforementioned direction given by the trial Court, no information whatsoever was ever given to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, within a week of the knowledge of the order filed an appeal against the order of the Court dated the 17th of March, 1958. This appeal was heard by the Additional commissioner who by his order dated the 31st of July, 1958 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the case for a fresh decision in the light of the observations m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
