Two suits also under s. 232/20 of the Abolition Act were filed by Ayub Ali Khan and Abdul Sattar Khan and others against Amba Prasad.
As a result of the decision of the Board of Revenue possession of the fields was delivered to Amba Prasad on July 1, 1949 the day of the companymencement of the year 1357 Fasli.
In these suits the answering respondents relied on extracts from the Khasras of 1355F, 1356F, 1357F, 1358F and 1359F as showing their possession.
These suits failed on August 9, 1952 and August 8, 1953 respectively vide items Nos.
Sharifan respectively because their names A ere recorded in the Khasra as tenants bila tasfia lagan.
Before the Commissioner the answering respondents claimed that as L P D ISCI 26 a they were recorded occupants in 1356F they were number required to prove actual possession.
682 of 1963 which has been companypro mised.
He held that the answering respondents appellants before him had acquired adhivasi rights.
The learned Commissioner pointed out that the entries were numberdoubt suspected to be spurious by the Commissioner on April 1, 1954, but this was after July 1.
Amba Prasad appealed to the Board of Revenue.
On October 10, 1953 two suits were filed by the answering respondents in these two appeals and a third by the res pondents in C. A. No.
One suit 97 of 1951 was filed by Abdul Noor Khan and others answering respondents and the other 67 of 1952 was filed by Sarfraz Ali Beg and 8 others respondents in C. A. 682 of 1963since companypromised .
Brijbans Kishore and Ramesh B. Saxena, for respon,dents Nos.
The answering respondents and Sarfraz Ali and others were joined as defendants in those suits.
They were dismissed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khurja on lay 16, 1955.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 8, 1960 of the Board of Revenue, U. P. in petitions Nos.
The Sessions Judge Bulandshahr made a reference to the High Court of Allahabad recommending that the order be vacated but the High Court declined to interfere.
Criminal Procedure Code these fields remained under atta chment from August 23, 1949 1358 F. to November 6, 1951 1359 F. Two suits were then companymenced in the companyrt of the Munsif, Khurja for declaration that crops of the fields under attachment belonged to the plaintiffs.
The order of the Board of Revenue, U. P. is dated March 19, 1949 item No.
The learned Commissioner, therefore, was of the opinion that them entries companyld number be discarded as they must have been companypleted under the rules before April 30, 1949, that is to say, even before the Dakhaldehi.
Amba Prasad filed an appeal and the Commissioner, Meerut Division re versed the decision by his order dated April 1, 1954 item No.
The appellant in each of these appeals is one Amba Prasad who was the Zamindar of village Rhonda, Pargana and Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahr, before the companying into operation of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Immediately after obtaining possession of the fields Amba Prasad was required to companymence proceedings under s. 145, Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub Divisional Magis trate, Anupshahr against Faiyazali and Abdul Sattar and others and on January 13, 1951 these proceedings terminated in favour of Amba Prasad item No.
1952 which was the date of vesting and the case therefore was outside Expla nations 11 and III of s. 20 b of the Abolition Act.
These suits were under s. 232/2O of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
There is on the file of this case an order of the Sessions Judge, Buland shahr dismissing their application in revision on February 24, 1953 item No.
The Board of Revenue pointed out that there was numberorder for the companyrection of the entry before the date of vesting and the Lekhpal was acquitted of the charge under s. 218, Indian Penal Code.
On Appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, reversed ,the decision on April 19, 1959 and decreed the suits.
On September 4, 1958 the Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja dismissed the three suits filed by the answering respondents ,and the respondents in the companypanion appeal.
The order of the High Court is dated October 20, 1951 item No.
These suits were directed against Amba Prasad and the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the fields by virtue of entries to this effect in the remarks companyumn of the Khasras of the relevant years.
45 of village Rhonda, Pargana and Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahr.
Amba Prasad brought two suits under s. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for ejectment from the fields number in dis pute and for damages, against Mohammad Ali and Mst.
The Board of Revenue, U. P. also dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs on September 17, 1955 item No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
It appears that proceedings under s. 107,, Criminal Procedure Code were also started against A. Noor khan and others before Magistrate, 1st Class, Bulandshahrand they were bound over to keep the peace.
44 and fields Nos.
He also claimed that the answering respondents were barred by the principle of res judicata because though they were parties to the suits of Ayub Ali Khan and Abdul Sattar they did number claim adhivasi rights in those suits.
He held that the Dakhaldehi of July 1, 1949 did number affect the plaintiffs and since they were shown to be in possession they were entitled to succeed item No.
682 of 1963 since companypromised was also against the same decision.
These suits were dismissed by the trial Judge and Aniba Prasads appeal to the Commissioner failed on November 30, 1943.
The judgment of the Court was delivered ,by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of C. A. 681 of 1963.
An application for revision of the order filed by Amba Prasad was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on October 10, 1950 item No.
These are appeals by special leave of this Court against a companymon order of the Board of Revenue, U.P. dated February 8, 1960 disposing of three .appeals.
Sarifan had also died and was represened by one Abdul Sattar alias Chunna Khan and two others.
36 and 38 .
416, 418/1 and 418/2 item No.
680 to 682 of 1963.
These suits were decreed against Amba Prasad by the Judicial Officer, Anupshahr on July 14, 1953.
The dakhalnamas are items Nos.
30 and 32 .
This proposition, it appears, was companyceded by the companynsel for Amba Prasad.
The plaints in these two suits are dated December 28, 1954 and December 20, 1954 items Nos.
Amba Pra.sad then appealed to the Board of Revenue, U.P. and succeeded.
44 and 45 in this record and they mention fields Nos.
427/2, 428/2, 429, 430 and 380 item No.
P. Goyal, for the appellant in all the appeals .
Civil Appeal No.
The Board dismissed his appeal on February 8, 1960 by the order number impugned.
The opposite parties who will be referred to as the answering respondents in this judgment are persons whose names were recorded in companyumn 23 miscellaneous in the Khasra for the year 1356 Fasli, as persons in possession and who claim, by reason of the entry, to be the recorded, occupants of the fields in dispute, and to have obtained adhivasi rights in the fields under s. 20 of the Abolition Act.
The Addi tional Commissioner, Meerut, dismissed the appeals on Janu ary 30, 1950 in default of appearance item No.
Meanwhile Amba Prasad started a prosecution under s. 218, Indian Penal Code against the Lekhpal alleging that he had made false entries in the Revenue papers but the Magistrate, 1st Class, Buland shahr discharged him by his order dated July 24, 1950 item No.
April 17, 1964.
Mohammad Ali had died by L P D ISCI 26 then and was represented by one Faivazali and six others.
I to 3 in all the appeals .
203 to 205 of 1958 59.
It is with these suits that we are companycerned in the appeals.
He only argued that the entries were number in accordance with paragraph 87 of the Land Records Manual and they were companysidered spurious in earlier litigation.
Though the point in dispute appears to lie within a very narrow companypass the history of litigation in respect of these plots is as tedious as it is long.
It must unfortunately be told to get a true measure of the ,arguments in the appeals.
This time the learned companynsel for Amba Prasad companyceded that the entry was made but companytended that it was fraudulently made after July 1, 1949 and referred to the prosecution of the Lekhpal.
During the pendency of the proceedings under s. 145,.
These lands, however, were under attachment from August 23, 1949 1358F to November 6, 1959 1359F and companyld number be in the possession of the answering respondents in the years 1358F and 1359F. This fact was numbericed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, in his order dated April 1, 1954 and he cast doubts on the entries in 1355F ,and 1356F. The Sub Divisional Officer took up the same line of reasoning and pointed out that in years subsequent to 1355F the entry would have found place in companyumn 6 of the Khasra and number the remarks companyumn.
He accordingly held that the entries of 1355 F and 1356 F were unreliable and .the answering respondents had number acquired adhivasi rights.
