Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 625 (ALL)

Ram Sanehi v. State

1978-05-25

P.C.SAXENA

body1978
JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - These are two connected references dated February 26, 1970 made by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in respect of the revision application numbers 26 and 6 of 1969-70, Mainpuri. 2. The facts are briefly that proceedings under Section 122-B of the UPZA and LR Act were initiated against the present revisionists and the trial court rejected their contention that they had taken the land on lease from the Gram Sabha and though the same had subsequently been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, they had constructed their houses during the pendency of the lease and were, therefore, not liable to ejectment. The trial court ordered their ejectment and damages amounting to Rs. 100/-. 3. Two revisions against this order have been recommended for rejection by the Commissioner who has agreed with the view taken by the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has cited a ruling of the Board of Revenue reported in 1976 AWC 116, in support of his contention that when a person has legitimately occupied land belonging to the Gram Sabha on the basis of a lease, subsequent cancellation of the same would not render him liable to summary ejectment proceedings under Section 122-B of the UPZA and LR Act. 5. With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the Board in the ruling cited. 6. Rule 115-I of the UPZA and LR Act is a specific enactment which is applicable to cases where a lease is cancelled and provides that such ex-lessees can be ejected through summary proceedings as envisaged by Section 122-B of the UPZA and LR Act. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has, however, cited another ruling of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 1958 AIR 97 which appears to support his argument. 8. A perusal of the judgment, however, discloses that the case discussed pertained to a period before the enactment of Rule 115-I by the legislature. Since the law itself was amended subsequent to the ruling, it cannot be held to apply to the present case. 9. The revision applications stand dismissed. 10. This order will govern reference numbers 404 and 405 of 1969-70/Mainpuri.