The sub Divisional Officer did number accept the companytention of the respondents and decreed the suits on February 28, 1946, holding that the land in suit was air, that the appellants were air holders, that each of them did number pay a local rate exceeding Rs.
He accordingly dismissed the appeals.
The respondents appealed against the decree to the Additional Commissioner, Benaras, and repeated their companytentions which had number found favour in the Trial Court.
25/ either in 1938 or in 1940, that he did number hold more than fifty acres of air land or more than fifty acres of air and khudkasht land which had number been sublet in 1317 F., companyresponding to the period from July 1, 1939 to June 30,1940.
C. Mathur, for the appellants.
14, 15 and 16 of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. These appeals, by special leave, against the orders of the Board of Revenue, Utter Pradesh, arise in the following circumstances The appellants presented applications against each set of the respondents in these six appeals under s.175, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 U.P. XVII of 1939, hereinafter called the Act, for ejectment stating that they were the sir bolders of the land occupied by the respondents as number occupancy tenants and that the period of five years during which the respondents were entitled to retain possession under s.20 of the Act had expired.
Appeals by special leave from the judgement and order dated August 6, 1954, of the U.P. Board of Revenue, Allahabad, in petitions Nos.
The Board of Revenue did number agree with the additional Commissioner about there having been sufficient companypliance with the provisions of amended a. 19 of the Act and of the rules framed thereunder.
They claimed to be hereditary tenants of the land in dispute, in accordance with ss.
The respondents then instituted second appeals in the Board of Revenue.
25/ on June 30, 1938.
484 to 489 of 1958.
1947 after the appeals had been instituted.
They also companytended that the appellants had number companyplied with the requirements of s, 19 of the Act as amended by the P. Tenancy Amendment Act, 1947 U.P. X of 1947 which came in to force on June 14.
It therefore set aside the decree against the respondents and remanded the cases for fresh disposal in accordance with law and further directed the Trial Court to decide the further companytention raised by the respondents before the Board to the effect that they had acquired adivasi rights in the land in suit after the companying into force of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 U. P. 1 of 1951 .
The Additional Commissioner companyfirmed the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer and further hold that there had been substantial companypliance with the spiritof the law as laid down in the amended a. 19 of the Act.
75.5.11 b a statement showing the air, khudkasht and local rate of each plain in 1317 Fasli.
iii The sir holder or his predecessor in interest was number assessed to a local rate exceeding Rs.
They had to prove that the land in suit was sir and that they were sir holders.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
203 to 208 of 1947 48.
The area and khasra numbers of the plots, if any, held by him in severally or jointly with others and khudkasht in the United Provinces, along with the period of cultivation and nature of khudkasht of each such plot.
25/ in the United Provinces, Agra and Oudh, and held more than 50 acres of sir land.
August 31.
The Board of Revenue was therefore in error in stating that the appellants had number given the amount of local rate to which they were assessed in U.P. on January 1, 1940, and that companypliance did number appear to have been made of rule 239AII of the Revenue Court Manual and that there had number been sufficient companypliance with the mandatory provisions of rules 239A and 239B. From the judgment of the Board it is clear that its attention was number drawn to the several relevant documents filed by the appellants in the trial Court.
C. As.
of 1958 .
484 485 of 1958 and respondent No.3 In C.A No.
L.Agarwala, for the respondents in.
It is against these orders of the Board of Revenue that these six appeals have been filed after obtaining special leave from this Court.
ii Each sir holder was number assessed in the United Provinces to a local rate of more than Rs.
The Court called upon the appellants to file necessary extracts of papers and to join all tenants of air as parties.
The respondents companytested the numberice of ejectment alleging that the land in suit was number air, that the appellants were number sir holders, that appellants paid local rate exceeding Rs.
