CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1965) 08 AHC CK 0004

Shaukat Ali vs Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahbad and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 2 August 1965 · Citation: (1965) 35 AWR 525

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N. Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M. Writ No. 992 of 1960

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 389 words

S.N. Singh, J.—This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of a proceeding u/s 234 of the U.P. ZA and LR Act. The Petitioner claiming to be the bhumidhar filed a suit against the opposite parties on the ground that opposite party No. 2 was adhivasi who had illegally let out the plot in suit to opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6, as such all the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 were liable to ejectment.

2.

On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence the trial court dismissed the suit but on appeal the lower appellate court accepted the Plaintiff''s case that there was illegal subletting and decreed the suit. The decision of the lower appellate court is dated 26.3.1957.

3.

Two appeals were filed by opposite parties No. 2 and Nos. 3 to 6 The Board allowed these appeals and restored the judgment of the trial court.

4.

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the decision of the Board of Revenue on only one ground that the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the finding of fact given by the Additional Commissioner.

5.

Without going into the merits of this case a bare look on the allegation of the plaint would show that the suit of the Plaintiff u/s 234 of the UP ZA and LR Act was a mis-conceived suit. The Petitioner has annexed a plaint which is annexure ''A'' to the petition and on a perusal of this plaint it is found that the Plaintiff alleged that the cause of action for the suit arose in the year 1950 when opposite party No. 2 a subtenant had illegally let out the plots to opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6. On this allegation no suit u/s 234 of the UP ZA and LR Act could be maintained. The cause of action having arisen before the date of vesting if any suit could be filed it could be filed under the provisions of the UP Tenancy Act.

6.

There is another ground for the dismissal of this writ petition. Even assuming that the Defendant opposite party No. 2 had illegally let out the plot to opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 her 7. For the reasons given above this writ petition lacks force and is hereby dismissed with cost.