Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3802
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir and Another - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad and Another - Respondent
Misc. Single No. 6751 of 2015
Decided On : 01-12-2015
For the Appellant : Durga Prasad Dwidevi, Sharad Dwivedi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The abatement of a suit under Section 5(2) of the Act is not automatic and requires a specific order to be passed. The right to file a revision is a vested right under the Act of 1950, and the statutory authority has the jurisdiction to decide the revision in accordance with the law.
Headnote:
Zamindari Abolition - Suit for declaration of bhumidhar - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 333 - Section 229-B - Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for declaring the plaintiff as bhumidhar of certain plots. A compromise was reached and the suit was decided in terms of the compromise. Subsequently, recall applications and abatement proceedings were filed, leading to the filing of a revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the abatement of the suit under Section 5(2) of the Act was not automatic and required a specific order to be passed. It held that the revision filed against the abatement was maintainable and dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to raise the points before the Board of Revenue, U.P.
Issues: The issues involved the abatement of the suit under Section 5(2) of the Act, the maintainability of the revision, and the jurisdiction of the statutory authority to decide the revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The abatement of the suit under Section 5(2) of the Act is not automatic and requires a specific order to be passed. The right to file a revision is a vested right under the Act of 1950, and the statutory authority has the jurisdiction to decide the revision in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise all points before the Board of Revenue, U.P., without being prejudiced by any observation of the Court.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Heard Sri D.P. Dwidevi, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel, for State of U.P.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, dated 31.07.2015, calling for lower court record and granting interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo, in the revision filed by respondent-2 under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
3. Thakur Ram Janki Ji, Virajman Mandir, Shri Sita Ram, mohalla Ram Ghat, Ayodhya through its Sarvarakar Mahant Ram Udar Das (now represented by petitioner-2) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 7/571/1096), under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, for declaring him as bhumidhar of plots 525-Ka (area 8 biswa) and 525-Kha (area 13 biswa) of village Majha Barehata pargana Haveli Awadh, district Faizabad, impleading Raghubar Das (now represented by respondent-2) as defendant-1. It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had purchased plot 525-Ka (area 8 biswa) from Miss Murial Guzar and R.K. Guzar (defendants-2 and 3) through sale deed dated 22.11.1965, who were its sirdar and obtained bhumidhar certificate after depositing requisite amount of land revenue on 28.07.1965. The plaintiff purchased plot 525-Kha (area 13 biswa) from Ram Lakhan and Mata Badal (defendants-4 and 5) through sale deed dated 23.01.1965, who were its sirdar and obtained bhumidhar certificate after depositing requisite amount of land revenue on 13.01.1965. Raghubar Das (defendant-1) has no interest in it. By coming forgery he got his name recorded over the land in dispute. On these allegations, suit for declaration was filed.
4. It appears that the dispute was referred to Arbitrator Sri Nritya Gopal Das. Before whom it was agreed between the parties that Raghubar Das was sirdar of the land in dispute, who would obtain bhumidhari certificate and execute a sale deed of it within 30 days in favour of Mahant Ram Udar Das. A written compromise signed by Ram Udar Das, Raghubar Das and also by Nritya Gopal Das was filed in the Court on 24.12.1971 which was verified and suit was decided in term of compromise by order dated 24.01.1972.
5. The petitioners filed an application dated 17.02.2014 for recall of the aforesaid order along with delay condonation application. In the application, it has been stated that plots 525-Ka (area 8 biswa 5 biswansi) and 525-Kha (area 13 biswa) of village Majha Barehata pargana Haveli Awadh, district Faizabad, were recorded in the name of Sri Ram Jankee, Virajman Mandir Sita Ram, Basarvarakar Mahant Ram Udar Das, Chela Awadh Biharee Das resident of Ram Ghat Ayodhya. At present Ram Das was heir and legal representative of Mahant Ram Udar Das and in possession of the land in dispute. Ram Kumar Das (opposite party-3) by committing forgery filed the suit. In which a forged compromise was filed and impugned order dated 24.01.1972 was secured. On its basis, he was recognized as tenant of the land in dispute and on its basis, he got his name recorded in the revenue records. Village Majha Barehata has now been notified under Section 4 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
6. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by exparte order dated 09.06.2015 condoned the delay in filing the recall application and heard arguments in recall application and reserved order on it. Ram Kumar Das (respondent-2) filed an application for recall of the orders dated 06.06.2015 and 09.06.2015. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 19.06.2015, recalled the order dated 06.06.2015. However, he found that by order dated 09.06.2015, only delay in filing recall application has been condoned as such it is not liable to be recalled. He fixed 23.06.2015 for hearing the recall application.
7. On 23.06.2015, Ram Kumar Das filed an application for abating the proceeding of recall application on the ground that village in question has been notified under Section 4 (2) of the Act
