Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 315 (ALL)

Atma Ram v. Board of Revenue

1984-04-13

K.P.SINGH

body1984
JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 178 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The trial court through its order dated 31.5.1971 ordered for auction sale of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 161-60 only (see annexure 2). in appeal the order of the trial court was confirmed as is evident from Annexure 3 attached with the writ petition. In revision the orders of the courts below were set aside and the case was sent back to the Trial court for fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The learned Member in his judgment dated 24.1.78 has made the following relevant observation vide para 8 :- "....The land in question was bhumidhari land and hence its valuation ought to have been calculated at 70 times of land revenue but the trial court calculated it at 40 times. It is worthy of note that rule 159-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which provided for preference being given to the parties, has since been deleted by the U.P.Z.A and L.R. (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 1976. The mere fact that the opposite party had taken dakhal will not affect the fate of the cases. A suit filed u/s 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act continues till final decree is prepared and completed. A revision is continuation of the proceedings, which started from the suit. The rights of the parties will be decided according to law, which obtains on the date on which the revision is heard and decided. In the changed circumstances, the holding would be sold amongst the co-tenure holders in accordance with the provisions of rule 160 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as they now stand, it is, therefore, necessary to remand the case to the trial court for fresh decision. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the revisional court has patently erred in applying the amended provisions of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to him the rights of the parties would be governed according to law prevalent on the date of the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the revisional court has patently erred in applying the amended provisions of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to him the rights of the parties would be governed according to law prevalent on the date of the suit. He has cited a large number of rulings in support of his contentions such as AIR 1970 SC 703 ; Arjun Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1976 All 517 Smt. Ram Mant Devi v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others; AIR 1977 SC 552 ; Govind Das and others v. Income-tax Officer and others; AIR 1980 All 385 Ramjas and others v. Surendra Nath and others ; and 1980 Allahabad Rent Cases, 99 Khubi Singh Yadav and others v. District Judge, Allahabad and others. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has also tried to support the impugned judgment and has submitted in reply that the revisional court was fully justified in taking into account the amended provisions of law and he has also placed reliance upon a number of rulings viz. 1973 R.D. 321 Ram Kumar v. Board of Revenue and others ; AIR 1962 SC 553, Ram Swarup v. Munshi; 1941 Federal Court 5, Lachmeshwar Prasad v. Keshwar Lal and so on. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, and I have gone through the rulings cited by the counsel for the parties. It is not necessary to deal with the cases cited by the counsel for the parties. 7. It has not been disputed before me that when the trial court decided the case Rule 159-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was on the Statute book but when the case was decided by the revisional court the aforesaid provisions stood deleted and today again Rule 159-B is in force. In this view of the matter the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed a desire that if the Trial court is directed to decide the claims of the parties in view of Rule 159-B, his purpose would be served. On the reasoning of the revisional court itself I have no doubt that the Trial court shall decide the claims of the parties in the light of Rule 159-B which is in force today. On the reasoning of the revisional court itself I have no doubt that the Trial court shall decide the claims of the parties in the light of Rule 159-B which is in force today. However, on merits it is to be indicated that the revisional court acted illegally in making the observation quoted above. The amendment deleting the Rule 159-B itself indicated that it would come into operation from the date of the publication in the Gazette, hence it was obligatory on the part of the revisional court to enforce the amendment in cases where the Trial court had not passed the order before the date of the publication of the amendment, in the present case the Trial court had already passed the order in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner much before the date of amendment, hence the revisional court patently erred in enforcing the amended provisions of law on the ground that the law prevailing on the date of decision would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The revisional court in the impugned order has directed that the sale would take place in accordance with the provisions of Rule 160 of U. P. Z. A. and L.R. Act. I think that direction deserves to be quashed in the circumstances of the present case. When Rule 155-B has again been enforced, it would be the duty of the Trial court to give effect to Rule 159-B as it stands today. Rule 159-B reacts as below:- "The following shall be the order of preference for sale to co-tenure holders under section 179- (a) co-tenure holder, who does not hold any land in the circle other than his interest in the holding in suit; (b) a co-tenure-holder, who is an asami in the circle but does not hold any land as bhumidhar other than his interest in the holding in suit ; and (c) a co-tenure holder, holding land less than 3.125 acres in area in the circle as a bhumidhar other than his interest in the following holding in suit." 8. It is note-worthy that the revisional court has pointed out in the impugned order that the Trial court had wrongly calculated the valuation at 40 times whereas it should have been at 70 times. I am sure that the Trial court will calculate the valuation strictly in accordance with law hereafter. 9. It is note-worthy that the revisional court has pointed out in the impugned order that the Trial court had wrongly calculated the valuation at 40 times whereas it should have been at 70 times. I am sure that the Trial court will calculate the valuation strictly in accordance with law hereafter. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 24.1.78 is hereby quashed and the Trial court is directed to decide the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made above. There would be no order as to costs.