Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today. The same is taken on record.

Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The writ petition arises out of a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for eviction of the petitioners.

2. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed title to the land in question on the basis of registered sale deed executed in their favour by the recorded tenure holder.

3. The petitioners contested the suit claiming that one Mohammad Ayyub was in possession of the land in question and he had put the petitioner in possession on the basis of agreement. It appears to have been alleged also, that the land was in the nature of an abadi and, therefore, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

4. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2013, decreed the suit, which judgment was affirmed in appeal, vide order dated 21.12.2013. The consequential revision filed before the Board of Revenue was also being dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

5. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the land in question was covered by constructions, it had ceased to be agricultural land and, therefore, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The suit for possession was, therefore, maintainable only before the Civil Court.

6. The second contention raised is that the vendor of the plaintiff/respondent belonged to the scheduled caste. He had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, without due permission of the Collector, as provided under Section 157 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is therefore, void being hit by Section 167 and in view of Section 166 of the Act, the property should vest in the State free from all encumbrance and for this reason also the suit at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.

8. At the very outset, in reply to a pointed query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly conceded that no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been granted by the competent authority as regards the land in question.

9. It is settled law that agricultural land continues to remain agricultural, even if it is not being used for agricultural purposes, till such time a valid declaration under Section 143 of the Act has been granted.

10. Under the circumstances and since admittedly no declaration has been granted, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit, is unfounded and cannot be accepted.

11. In so far as the second contention that the sale deed, whereby title of the land in question was acquired by the plaintiff/respondent, having been executed without the permission of the Collector contemplated under Section 157 of the Act and the same was void and on its basis, plaintiff could not maintain the suit, it appears from the record that this point was never raised before the courts below.

12. Thus an all together new plea is being raised for the first time in writ petition, which cannot be permitted. The point necessarily entails a factual foundation which is not found to have been laid in the suit.

13. Besides, in case there is violation of Section 157 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, therefore, in view of Sections 166 and 167 of the said Act, the land would vest in the State, the same does not improve the petitioners' case. The petitioners, even in that circumstance, necessarily has to be evicted from the land in question.

14. However, no defenitive finding is being recorded by this Court in this regard.

15. Even if contention of learned counsel f