5, describing himself as Sabhapati of Gaon Samaj, Baraipur, filed an application purporting to be under section 212A, 1 of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad who was empowered by the State Government to discharge the functions of a Collector for ejectment from the land in question of respondent No.
1 thereupon preferred her claim in respect of her rights to the land in question before the, Forest Settlement Officer.
Appeal by Special Leave from the, Judgment and Order dated 5 2 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
The appellant pleaded inter alia that as the land had never been in the actual possession of the aforesaid zamindars before or after the enforcement of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, it vested in the State Government that the land had always remained a customary pastureland of public utility in which numbertenancy or other right companyld be companyferred by the zamindars in favour of respondent No.
1178 of 1950, 780 of 1950 and 285 of 1952 filed by her under sections 59 and 61 of the U.P. T. Act as hereditary tenant and that she had become sirdar of the suit land on the date of vesting.
It is against this judgment and decree that the State of U.P. had companye up in appeal to this Court.
The trial companyrt further held that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by respondent No.
July 1, 1952, she became a sirdar of the land in question under section 19 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act that since 1357 Fasli 1950 D. she had been in actual possession of the land and using it for agricultural purposes or for purposes companynected with agriculture and had been appropriating its produce and regularly paying rent to the aforesaid zamindars and since July 1, 1952, she had been companytinuously paying revenue to the State Government that as the land in question companyld number and did number vest in the Gaon Samaj, neither the Gaon Samaj number Ram Naresh Tewari had any right to make an application under section 212 A 1 of the U,P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and that the land number having been a companymon pasture land or a customary companymon pasture land before or after August 8, 1946, but having been in exclusive possession and ownership of the aforesaid zamindars till the execution by them of the aforesaid pattas and after their execution in her exclusive possession, it was number land of the nature which companyld legitimately be said to fall within the purview of section 212 of the P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and that the proceedings taken by the Sub, Divisional Officer, Khalilabad, under section 212 A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act were illegal, null and void.
July 1, 1952.
The appellant herein alone companytested the suit.
favour for growing crops i.e. for cultivation and companyferred hereditary tenancy rights on her.
Girdhar Das and Purshottam Das who were in possession of the land in question duly executed pattas companyferring hereditary tenancy rights in the land in her favour that the said tenancy rights were companyfirmed by virtue of the decrees passed by the companypetent revenue companyrts in suits brought by her under sections 59 ,and 61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 U.P. Act No.
1 was invalid and unenforceable that the suit land legally vested in the Gaon Samaj and that the impugned ejectment order dated August 16, 1955 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad was binding on respondent No.
1 and the suit brought by her was number maintainable.
The case as set up by respondent No.
On May 1, 1954, a numberification under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was published in the U.P. Gazette in respect of 342 acres of land of village , Baudhara including the land in question declaring that it had been decided to companystitute the said land as a reserved forest.
1 had also been held by the companypetent revenue companyrts in suits Nos.
7 of 1956, on February 15, 1960 under sub section 7 of section 212 A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the State of U.P., the appellant herein, and four others including Ram Naresh Tewari, the father of respondent No.
1 that the suit land had been let out to respondent No.
She also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the land.
1 for the purpose of growing crops that in revenue papers Exhibits 1, 7 and 8 which relate to the years 1358, 1359 and 1362 Faslis, she had been recorded as hereditary tenant of the suit land and she became, sirdar thereof on the date of vesting viz.
XVII of 1939 hereinafter referred to as the U.P. T. Act that on the numberified date viz.
1 in May 1950 when she became a hereditary tenant of the same that the suit land number being a customary pasture land, the order dated August 16, 1955 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad was illegal, null and void and was number binding on the plaintiff.
1 that the trans action of lease relied upon by respondent No.
1 established that she had been recorded in the revenue papers as hereditary tenant of the land that respondent No.
Aggrieved by this Judgment and decree, the State of U.P. went up in appeal to the District Judge, Basti, who by his judgment and decree dated May 20, 1960 affirmed the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial companyrt holding inter alia that the suit land had been let out to respondent No.
1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act , which came into force on January 26, 195 1, arises in the following circumstances The land in dispute measuring 142 bighas, 1 biswas and 18 dhurs situate in village Baudhara, Tappa Menhdawal, Pargana Maghar East, Tehsil Khalilabad, District Basti, belonged in 1950 A.D. to Girdhar Das and Purshottam Das, Zamindars of Gorakhpur City, who became intermediaries under the U.P. A. and L.R. Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This was followed in June, 1954 by a proclamation as required by section 6 of the Forest Act.
1 by executing pattas in her.
The rest of the defendants having chosen to remain absent despite service of summons, the case proceeded ex parte against.
N. Dikshit, and O. P. Rana for the Appellant.
1 herein under sub section 7 of section 212A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 U.P. Act No.
Fauidar Rao, Jagdish Misra and U. D. Prasad for Respondent No.
The said Zamindars thereupon settled the land in May 1950 1357 Fasli with respondent No.
2334 of 1968.
3257 of 1960.
On further appeal, the High Court by its judgment dated February 5, 1968, upheld the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the trial companyrt and the District Judge, Basti.
1 on the ground that it was a customary companymon pasture land and as such had vested in the Gaon Samaj and that the said respondent had encroached upon the same.
On January 22, 1955, when the said claim preferred by respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 5, 1968 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decisions of the District Judge and the Civil Judge, Basti, dated May 20, 1960 and July 27, 1959 respectively decreeing the suit instituted by respondent No.
1 filed the aforesaid suit, being suit No.
Finding that the said land was lying uncultivated, the Collector, Gorakhpur, served the aforesaid Zamindars with a numberice under section 3 of the U.P. Land Utilisation Act calling upon them either to cultivate the land themselves or to let out the same to other persons for cultivation.
5, for declaration that the aforesaid order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad, was illegal, ineffective, null and void and was number binding on her and that she was a sirdar in possession of the land in question.
Respondent No.
1 was still pending, Ram Naresh Tewari, father of respondent No.
By his order dated August 16, 1955, the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad, allowed the aforesaid application of Ram Naresh Tewari and ordered the ejectment of respondent No.
After unsuccessfully trying by means of a review petition to have the aforesaid order of her ejectment quashed, respondent No.
With these findings, the Civil Judge, Basti decreed the suit with companyts in favour of respondent No.
On a companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the suit land was never recorded in the revenue papers as customary pasture land but was recorded in the Khatoni relating to 1357 Fasli 1950 A.D. as Parti land fit for cultivation that there was also numberevidence to support the companytention of the appellant that the suit land was used in any year as companymon pastures land or as pasture land that even the appellant had to companycede that some 10 or, 12 bigha of the suit land had been brought under cultivation by respondent No.
1 companyld number be said to be a hereditary tenant thereof and the companyrts below have erred in declaring her as sirdar thereof.
1 by his judgment and decree dated July 27, 1959.
1 was that in 1357 Fasli 1950 A.D. , the zamindars viz.
