Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) One Challoo was Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. He died heirless. The plots vested in the Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha appears to have let out these plots to the Respondents on Batai rent. Subsequently the Respondents were asked to pay rent in cash. Later on Gram Sabha filed suits for the ejectment of the Respondents Under Sec. 209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act on the allegations that the Respondents were in occupation as licensees and the Gram Sabha has revoked their licenses.
(2.) The trial court held that the Gram Sabha had not followed at all the procedure prescribed Under Sec. 198 of Zamindari Abolition Act read with Rules 173 and 174, the Defendants could not hence be held to be lessees in possession. Since they are in occupation of the land with the permission of the Gaon Sabha, they were simply licensees. With the revocation of the licences, the suit was maintainable. The suit was accordingly decreed.
(3.) On appeal, the Additional Commissioner held that the status of the Respondents was not that of licensees but of lessees. On this view, the suit was dismissed. The matter was taken up to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that the Gaon Sabha had not at all followed the procedure laid down by Sec. 198 and Rules 173 and 174, but it allowed the Defendants to cultivate the land as an interim arrangement. In this situation, the Defendants would be merely licensees. Later the Gaon Sabha tried to settle the land according to the procedure laid down in the Act. Thereupon the Defendants turned round and contested the rights of the Gaon Sabha. Thereupon, their licenses were revoked. The suit was held maintainable.;