- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It arises out of a consolidation matter.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to certain plots. All the plots in dispute are contiguous and con stitute one whole with an area of 6 bighas, 6 biswas and 14 dhurs. They were admittedly owned by Smt. Dulahin Manik Rajkumari, Respondent No. 5. It appears that by a deed dated 15th Nov ember. 1949 Padam Lal Bhatia, the peti tioner, obtained possession over the land in dispute for a period of nine years commencing from 1357F. to 1365F. This deed was termed as a Theka. The main stipulations in the deed were: (i) the Thekedar had the right to utilize the fruits of the grove; (ii) he could plant new trees at the expense of the lessor in place of fallen or dried up trees only with the permission of the lessor and (iii) he could grow vegetables on the vacant land and had generally to look after the grove and the compound. The Thekedar under the deed, was required to pay a sum of Rs. 325/- per year and in case of default he could be ejected on one month's notice. The Thekedar had also to supply certain quantity of fruits every year to the lessor. This deed is the bone of contention between the parties. It appears that riots to the institution of the proceedings before the consolidation authorities there were three other litigations between the parties. Respondent No. 5 had to file Suit No. 28 of 1952 against the petitioner for his ejectment. That suit culminated in a compromise between the parties, where under the petitioner was allowed to continue in possession over the plots in dispute on condition that he did not defy the terms of the deed. The peti tioner, however, appears to have contra vened the terms of the deed in spite of the compromise, as a result of which an other suit (No. 375 of 1955) had to be filed against him by respondent No. 5 on 30th April, 1955, for the ejectment of the petitioner and for the recovery of damages. This suit was decreed by the Munsif. During the pendency of the suit the village in question was brought under consolidation operations and a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was pub lished on 19th March, 1960. But the learned Munsif did not stay the proceed ings and chose to decide the case. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the Munsif, which was dismissed by the learned Judge on 30th January, 1961. In pursuance of the decree in her favour respondent No. 5 also obtained possession. The petitioner, however, preferred a Second Appeal before this Court. This Court also af firmed the decree of the lower ap pellate Court but so far as the claim for possession was concerned, it was abated under Section 5 of the U.. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act.
(3.) THERE was yet another pro ceeding under Section 240-G of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act) in which compensation was award ed to respondent No. 5 on the footing that the petitioner had become Sirdar of the land in dispute.;