M.L.CHATURVEDI, MEHROTRA
BUDHU SINGH – Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE – Respondent
( 1 ) THESE are ten connected writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, in which common questions of law arise and they may conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
( 2 ) ONE Ahmadi Begam was the zamindar of the plots in dispute in all the ten petitions, and she claimed that the plots were her khudkasht dots The petitioners in the petitions claimed to be the tenants of different plots owned by Ahmadi Begam. She accordingly filed ten suits under Section 63 of the U. P. Tenancy Act for a declaration that the plots were her khudkasht plots that the petitioners were not the tenants of these plots and that they were all in her possession. The petitioners denied that the plots were khudkasht plots of Ahmadi Begam and set up tenancy rights in different) plots in themselves. Ahmadi Begam died during the pendency of the suits and 2nd respondent was impleaded as her legal representative. The suits were filed in the year 1945, but they remained pending for a long time in the trial Court, During their pendency, the U. P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act of 1949, (hereinafter called the Acquisition of Privileges Act), came into force, and the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.