Appellants Nos.
The appellants then moved the High Court under Article 26 of the Constitution The learned Single Judge who heard the petition was of the view that on the date of the vesting with reference to the provisions of the Act, namely, July 1, 1952 the appellants were only intermediaries and since the land had vested in the State and the appellants had numbersubsisting rights their petition was number maintainable.
The appellants were the Zamindars of certain plots in three villages in district Basti in the State of Utter Pradesh.
Lalai went up in appeal to the Additional Settlement Officer Consolidation The appeal was dismissed.
The appellants, however, maintained that the suit itself had abated under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules.
2 and 4 and the predecessors in interest of appellants Nos.
One of the appellants filed a suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act 1939 for his ejectment on the ground that he was a trespasser.
On July 1, 1952 the , hereinafter called the Act, came into force.
The additional Settlement Officer Consolidation stated in his order dated July 27, 1962 that Lalai had claimed that he was the occupant in the year 1356 F and, therefore, he became Adivasi of the plots in suit.
The Com missioner in his order dated July 27, 1962 referred to a decision of this companyrt in The Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Khalil ul Rahman Ors.
4 Lalai therefrom.
This related to 194 villages in the district of Basti including the villages in which the land in dispute was situate.
Lalai preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed in July 1951.
This order was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal which was dismissed summarily.
There were a number of questions involved which required determination.
During the pendency of the appeal Ishwar Din who was one of the respondents died on August 9, 1954.
The hearing of the appeal was stayed under Rule 4 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.
Shri S.N. Mitra was of the view that the appeal along with the suit had abated, whereas Shri R.N. Singh, the Judicial Member, held that the appeal had abated under Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC.
That suit was ultimately dismissed by the appellate companyrt on the ground that the plaintiff did number have the right to institute the suit alone without impleading the other companysharers.
On his death Lalai, respondent No.
One Tameshar was an occupancy tenant in these plots.
Lalai companytinued to remain in possession.
The writ petitions was dismissed by Broome J. on February 7, 1962.
On September 20, 1956 an order was made dismissing the appeal.
4, entered into possession of the said plots asserting that he was Tomeshars daughters son.
It appears that on the question locus standi the Division Bench was in error in dismissing the special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in limine.
He preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was admitted and the execution of the decree was stayed.
But numbercopy of the khasra or khatauni entries had been filed to show that he had ever been recorded as an occupant of the said plots.
The two members of the Revenue Board expressed separate opinions.
On April 28, 1962 the Commissioner dismissed that appeal.
Thereupon the proceedings under the aforesaid Act companymenced.
Lalai preferred a second appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Broome J., in the writ petition filed by Lalai agreed with the view of Shri R.N. Singh Judicial Member of the Board that the suit and the appeal companyld number be ordered as having abated, under Rule 5 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Rules.
On August 17, 1961 that appeal was allowed as he was in possession of the suit land in 1356 F. The appellants filed an application for revision in the companyrt of Commissioner who was acting as Director of Consolidation.
He died in August 1945.
Meanwhile a numberification was issued in January 1960 under the U P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953.
The Consolidation Officer disposed of the matter on April 29, 1961.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit holding that Lalai was number the daughters son of Tameshar but was a mere trespasser.
1 and 3 moved the Consolidation Officer for their names being recorded against the plots in dispute as Bhoomidars and for the deletion of the name of respondent No.
He challenged the order of the Board of Revenue by means of a petition under Article 26 of the Constitution and obtained an interim order staying execution of the decree for ejectment which had been obtained by the appellants under Section 180 of the Tenancy Act.
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition which had been filed by the appellants.
Thereafter the appellants and others who companystituted the entire body of the companysharers instituted a fresh suit for ejectment of Lalai.
