Azhar Hasan & Ors. Vs. Distt. Judge , Saharanpur & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4951 of 1990
Petitioner: Azhar Hasan & Ors.
Respondent: Distt. Judge , Saharanpur & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4951 of 1990
Judges: M.M. PUNCHHI , C.J. , K.T. THOMAS & M. SRINIVASAN , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 22, 1998
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act , 1950
Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Land of appellants under tenancy – Tenants inducting others and abandoning the land – Those trans-ferees shown in possession in revenue record – Sale by them to strangers on the basis of U.P. Act of 1950- Suit in civil Court challenging the revenue entry and sale-deed based on fraud – Civil Court returning the plaint that it has no jurisdiction as it was for the revenue authorities to determine as to who should be recorded in possession . Held that the question as to who should be recorded as tenant was determinable by revenue authori-ties and plaint was rightly returned , and also because sale was challenged on basis of fraud and appellants were not parties to said sale .( Para 2 )
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act , 1950
Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Land of appellants under tenancy – Tenants inducting others and abandoning the land – Those trans-ferees shown in possession in revenue record – Sale by them to strangers on the basis of U.P. Act of 1950- Suit in civil Court challenging the revenue entry and sale-deed based on fraud – Civil Court returning the plaint that it has no jurisdiction as it was for the revenue authorities to determine as to who should be recorded in possession . Held that the question as to who should be recorded as tenant was determinable by revenue authori-ties and plaint was rightly returned , and also because sale was challenged on basis of fraud and appellants were not parties to said sale .( Para 2 )
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1 . The minimal facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellants were the owners of the disputed land which was in the tenancy of some persons . Those persons , apparently for some consideration , inducted two others and themselves according-ly the land . In the crucial year , those transferees were shown to be in possession of that land in the revenue records on the axis of which the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act , 1950 became operative , divesting title of the ap-pellants . Those persons sold the land to some strangers on the basis that they had acquired Bhumidhari rights . The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants claiming that the revenue records were wrong and that on the abandonment of tenancy of tenants , possession ought not to have been recorded in favour of those persons and , as a corollary , the sale deed executed in favour of the last-mentioned persons was illegal and based on fraud . The courts below have taken the view that who should have been recorded in possession of the land in dispute , was a matter for the Revenue authorities to determine , and thus the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter . The plaint accordingly was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs to be filed before an appropriate Revenue Court . The appeal of the plaintiffs in the first appellate court was dismissed . Instead of filing a second appeal , they moved the High Court by way of a writ petition which , too , was dismissed .
2 . On reading the plaint and on understanding the controversy , we get to the view that whether those persons who succeeded the recorded tenants , were rightly recorded as tenants or not , was a question determinable by the Revenue authorities . Besides that , the sale deed which has been questioned on the basis of fraud , was not executed by the plaintiffs but by others , and they were not parties thereto so as to allege the incidence of fraud . In these circumstances , we are of the view that the plaint was rightly returned to the plaintiffs . They are even now at liberty to approach the Revenue authorities and claim deduction of time spent in these proceedings , in computing limitation
for the purpose of the suit . In this view of the matter , the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed . No costs .
1 . The minimal facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellants were the owners of the disputed land which was in the tenancy of some persons . Those persons , apparently for some consideration , inducted two others and themselves according-ly the land . In the crucial year , those transferees were shown to be in possession of that land in the revenue records on the axis of which the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act , 1950 became operative , divesting title of the ap-pellants . Those persons sold the land to some strangers on the basis that they had acquired Bhumidhari rights . The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants claiming that the revenue records were wrong and that on the abandonment of tenancy of tenants , possession ought not to have been recorded in favour of those persons and , as a corollary , the sale deed executed in favour of the last-mentioned persons was illegal and based on fraud . The courts below have taken the view that who should have been recorded in possession of the land in dispute , was a matter for the Revenue authorities to determine , and thus the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter . The plaint accordingly was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs to be filed before an appropriate Revenue Court . The appeal of the plaintiffs in the first appellate court was dismissed . Instead of filing a second appeal , they moved the High Court by way of a writ petition which , too , was dismissed .
2 . On reading the plaint and on understanding the controversy , we get to the view that whether those persons who succeeded the recorded tenants , were rightly recorded as tenants or not , was a question determinable by the Revenue authorities . Besides that , the sale deed which has been questioned on the basis of fraud , was not executed by the plaintiffs but by others , and they were not parties thereto so as to allege the incidence of fraud . In these circumstances , we are of the view that the plaint was rightly returned to the plaintiffs . They are even now at liberty to approach the Revenue authorities and claim deduction of time spent in these proceedings , in computing limitation
for the purpose of the suit . In this view of the matter , the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed . No costs .
