Decided on November 05,1980

Batohi Yadav And Another Appellant
State of U.P. and others Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



K.M.Dayal, J. - (1.)The present petition has been filed by defendant in a suit for ejectment filed against him by respondent No. 4 Gaon Sabha in the court of Munsif Ghazipur. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed land belonged to the petitioner and was used for sehan and other agricultural purposes. According to the allegations of the petitioner the land was used for tethering cattle, growing vegetables etc. and was on the door of his house. From para 1 of the plaint it is clear that these plots previously were agricultural plots. The disputed plot was reserved for abadi purpose and was given chak No. 165. According to plaint allegation an application under Rule 115 (c) framed under Sec. 122B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was moved against the petitioner which was dismissed and the order was upheld up to Board of Revenue. Thereafter the Gaon Sabha filed the instant suit claiming that the land was reserved for abadi and the defendant was in illegal possession of the same. The defendant filed written statement alleging that the disputed land was being used for agricultural purpose and as such was 'Land' within the meaning of sub-section (14) of Sec. 3 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Courts below without determining the nature of the land held that the land was reserved for abadi purpose and so it ceased to be the land within the meaning of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(2.)Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a case reported in (1980 Rev Dec 61): (1980 All LJ NOC 15) (Arjun Singh Vs. Kartar Singh) . In that case the question was whether a land which was recorded as Sir and subsequently was covered by abadi, the consolidation courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of the parties and if so, whether the provisions of S. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bar the subsequent proceedings. The answer was in the affirmative. This case in no way helps, the plaintiff-respondent No. 4. The land has been defined under Sec. 3 (14) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as under:-
"3 (14). "Land", except in Sections 143 and 144, means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or pisciculture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming."
Reservation of land for Abadi purposes could only mean that it may be held for Abadi. But unless the use of land for agricultural purposes was stopped or it was converted to non-agricultural purposes, it would not cease to be 'land' as defined in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under the definition it is not necessary that it must be held for agricultural purposes. Even if it is being occupied for purposes connected with agriculture etc. it will be covered by the definition quoted above. In the instant case it is not disputed that the land was still occupied for agricultural purposes. It was not the case that it had been used for any non-agriculture purpose. Unless it was proved that the land was not being used for agricultural purpose, it would continue to be 'land' as covered by the definition quoted above. Once the dispute was about the 'land', the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred and only revenue court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in respect of the same under Sec. 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The orders of the courts below (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) are patently erroneous. They cannot be sustained.
(3.)The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby quashed. The case is sent down to respondent No. 3 for determining the matter afresh after considering the use to which the land is being put or it was being put on the date of the suit. If the land was being used for any purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture etc. as mentioned in Sec. 3 (14) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction, otherwise it will have jurisdiction. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.