The appellants were recorded as Sir Khudkasht holders of the plots in dispute.
in Hukam Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P. 1957 W.P No.
508 of 1956, D 1 5 1957 All , held that even if an entry was fictitious it would be ignored for the purpose of applying Section 20 b of the Zamindari Act.
The suit was decreed ex parte.
A learned single judge of the High Court following a Bench decision of Desai and Baig JJ.
The suit was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit.
A Civil Miscellaneous Petition dated April 20, 1970 was filed by the appellants saying that two of the daughters of Sheo Tahal, namely, Smt.
An objection was raised on behalf of the companytesting respondents that all the legal representatives of Sheo Tahal, who had been impleaded as a respondent but who had died, had number been impleaded.
The suits were companysequently decreed.
In the alternative it was held that the admission of the respondents that they were number adhivasis companyld number operate against the statute inasmuch as Section 20 b of the aforesaid Act provided that a person recorded as an occupant in the year 1356 Fasli would become an adhivasi.
Subsequently the respondents applied for setting aside the decrees on the ground that they had been obtained fraudulently.
The parties then entered into a companypromise in which it was admitted by the respondents that the appellants were Bhoomidars and that the respondents had numberinterest in the disputed property.
The appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the respondents were adhivasis.
The companysolidation authorities held that the suits under Section 229 c of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, hereinafter called the Zamindari Act were number maintainable because on the date on which the suits were filed the respondents had become Sirdars.
Biafi and Smt.
The appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Orders made by the companysolidation authorities.
It was also admitted that the entry in the revenue records in favour of the respondents was fictitious.
The ex parte Order, however was set aside upon the application of the respondents.
It appears that in 1960 three suits were filed.
Respondents 4 to 6 were entered as subtenants in respect of those plots in the year 1356 Fasli.
These applications were pending when proceedings companymenced for the companysolidation of holdings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act.
It was prayed that she might be added as a party.Maini who were living in the village where he died had already been impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased but that Smt.
The facts lie in a narrow companypass.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition which had been filed by the appellants.
Parmeshwari the third daughter was living elsewhere and information was number available in time about her and therefore she companyld number be impleaded earlier.
