9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Possession and Status under U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. Application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of possession. 4. Bar of suit under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 5. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Summary: Issue 1: Possession and Status under U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 The appellants, claiming to be Khudkasht holders of the Zamindars, filed a suit for possession u/s 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which resulted in a decree in their favor. They claimed to have acquired the status of Bhumidars under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondents argued that they acquired the status of adhivasis u/s 20 of the 1950 Act and sought to regain possession, which the Additional Commissioner granted. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 The appellants contended that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits once the village was under consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Board of Revenue held that the appeal should have been stayed, not decided on merits, and remitted the matter back to the Additional Commissioner. Issue 3: Application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of possession The appellants sought restitution of possession u/s 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the reversal of the Additional Commissioner's decision. The Sub Divisional Officer and subsequent authorities rejected their application, stating that the decision under the 1953 Act had become final and could not be reopened. Issue 4: Bar of suit under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 The appellants filed a suit u/s 209 and 229(b) of the 1950 Act, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue on grounds of res judicata and limitation. The High Court upheld that the suit was barred u/s 49 of the 1953 Act, as the plots were finally allotted to the respondents in consolidation proceedings. Issue 5: Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act The appellants argued for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the time spent in earlier proceedings. The High Court and statutory authorities held that Section 14 was not applicable as the earlier proceeding under Section 144 of the CPC did not relate to the same matter in issue and failed on merits, not on jurisdictional grounds. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents had a stronger legal and equitable claim to possession as adhivasis under the 1950 Act. The appellants' suit was barred by limitation and Section 49 of the 1953 Act, and they were not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The decision of the High Court and statutory authorities was upheld.
|
