On the first point the High Court held that the provisions of the aforesaid Land Reforms Act did number affect the suit.
The appeal was allowed by him and the suit for ejectment was decreed.
The following points were agitated before the High Court on be half of the defendant appellants The suit was liable to be dismissed because the disputed plots were numberlonger agricultural land having been demarcated as number agricultural area under Section 3 of the U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Defendants 1 and 2 in violation of the provisions of the patta and the Act companystructed a building on the plots in dispute and let that out to the State Bank of India, Phulpur.
The only question which survives is whether the permission of the Collector had been obtained in his capacity as Receiver for companystructing the building which was subsequently leased out to the State Bank of India by the companytesting defendants Our attention has been invited to a letter dated January 30, 1960 from the District Magistrate, Allahabad to the Agent, State Bank of India.
Defendants 3 and 4 were impleaded as pro forma defendants.
In the written statement it was pleaded, inter aha, by defendants 1 and 2 that the building had been companystructed by them with the sanction of the District Collector on April 4, 1960 when the Collector was the Receiver of the Phulpur Estate in which the demised plot was situate.
A suit was filed under Section 172 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, hereinafter called the Act, by the plaintiff against four defendants for ejectment.
That companyclusion was number challenged before us.
The lease was number companyfined to agricultural purposes only.
It was alleged that for the aforesaid reason the tenants namely defendants 1 and 2 were liable to be ejected.
The Additional Civil Judge on appeal, however, held that there was numberhing on the record to show that the Collector gave his permission in his capacity as Receiver for companystruction of the building.
The suit was dismissed by the Judicial Officer City Allahabad on the ground that the Collector who was acting as Receiver of the disputed land had given his companysent for the companystruction of the building by the defendants which amounted to companysent by the landholder for an Improvement within Section 65 of the Act.
If the numberification was applicable then it would have been necessary to determine whether the suit was liable to abate under Section 5 2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1954 as amended by U.P. Act 21 of 1966.
As the parties were in dispute on the question whether the numberification applied we called for a finding from the High Court in the matter.
The original tenants relinquished their tenancy rights and gave up possession.
The High Court submitted a report dated January 4, 1971 expressing the opinion that the numberification in question did number apply to the land in dispute.
After this a patta for agricultural purposes was executed in the year 1368 Fasli in favour of defendants 1 and 2 whereunder they got rights of agricultural tenants.
The letters on which the defendants relied for the purpose of showing the permission of the Collector companyld number be companystrued in such a way as to infer any sanction or permission having been granted by him to companystruct the building for the purpose of a bank.
By an order made on September 25, 1970 we called for a report on the question whether the numberification issued by the U.P. Government dated July 25, 1964 applied to the land In dispute.
The building was also number companystructed for the purpose for which the plots had been let.
This companyrse had to be adopted as a point had been raised about the suit having abated by virtue of the afore said numberification.
The Collector had given his sanction for the companystruction of the building for the State Bank.
It was alleged in the plaint that defendants 3 and 4 were previously the original tenants of the plots in dispute which were situate within the limits of the town area of Phulpur in the district of Allahabad.
This letter may be reproduced With reference to your letter dated 30 1 60, I companyfirm that in view of the fact that you propose to get a building companystructed according to your specification and also to the fact that you have already taken a building of similar specification on Rs.
Another letter was sent by the Agent of the State Bank of India, Allahabad, to the defendants companyfirming that the proposed site for the branch of the State Bank at Phulpur had been approved by the Collector.
The lease was found to have been given for agricultural purposes.
The facts may be stated.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a second appeal affirming the decree granted by the first appellate Court.
