K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the UP ZA and LR Act. The petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the disputed land and have been held liable to pay damages as is evident from the judgment of the Tahsildar Assistant Collector 1st Class, Mathura dated 10-9-1973. Against the order of the Trial Court the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was recommended to be allowed by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 16-1-75. The revisional court through its order dated 15-2-1977 has rejected the revision petition and has confirmed the order of the trial court.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the learned member has patently erred in making the following observation in paragraph 14 of his judgment :- " THE plea of learned counsel cannot be accepted. THE ruling refers to the proper procedure to be adopted by the High Courts of the country. So far as the practice of the Board of Revenue as hitherto followed is concerned, it would not be proper to set up a precedent likely to cause inconvenience to litigant by prolonging the course of litigation to be suffered by them before the Board." It is true that the learned member has patently erred in making the above observation in his impugned judgment dated 15-2-1977. The Board of Revenue is subordinate to the High Court after enforcement of the Constitution of the Country. If any precedent has been indicated by the highest court of the country regarding the High Courts in the country that would be equally applicable to the highest court on revenue side which is under the supervisory power of the High Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution. In the circumstances of this case I think that the learned Member is not correct in making the above quoted observation. However, on merits the petitioner's possession on the findings of fact recorded by the revenue courts starts from 1366F. on the basis of the documentary evidence and even on oral evidence the possession of the petitioners starts from the year 1950. On 1st July 1952 the petitioners had not perfected any title to the disputed land and after the amendment of the provisions of sections 209 and 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act the petitioners cannot prescribe title to the disputed land hence the ejectment of the petitioners, is fully justified and since the petitioners have been directed to be evicted from the disputed land, I think substantial justice has been done and it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgments. Since the possession of the petitioners is unauthorised, they have rightly been held to pay damages.
(3.) IN the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;