K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of a suit under section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act.
(2.) THE plaintiff opposite party had claimed sirdari light in the disputed plot no. 338/2 and that the defendant had dispossessed the plaintiff, hence the suit. THE claim of the plaintiff opposite party was contested by the defendant petitioner on various grounds. One of the pleas raised was that the disputed land was not agricultural land and there existed constructions due to which the disputed land under went a change and acquired the character of Abadi. All the revenue courts have decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved by their judgments the defendant petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The only question pressed on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the decrees passed by all the revenue courts are without jurisdiction, hence they should be quashed. It has been emphasized that according to later evidence about declaration of the disputed land as Abadi the question of jurisdiction can be raised on behalf of the petitioners and since the judgments and decrees are without jurisdiction, they deserve to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the rulings reported in 1966 RD page 1, Mukteshwari Prasad v. Ram Wali, AIR 1968 SC 466. Smt. Sonawati v. Sri Ram, 1970 AU 1145, Balbodh v. Mahabir; AIR 1976 SC 49, Rameshwar v. Jat Ram; and 1978 RD 124, Pearey Lal v. SDO Budhana.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff contesting opposite party has emphasized in reply that when the plaintiff opposite party filed a suit in the Civil Court a plea was raised by the defendant petitioner to the effect that the civil court had no jurisdiction and when the revenue courts have decreed the plaintiffs' suit the defendant petitioner is raising a plea regarding jurisdiction of the revenue courts which is not fair and proper hence the same should not be entertained at the stage of writ. It has also been suggested that the question of jurisdiction in the circumstances of the present case cannot be entertained at the instance of the defendant petitioner due to bar of the principle of res judicata. He has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1979 AWC page 635, Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh. He has also emphasized that the defendant petitioner has failed to show any failure of justice due to the decrees passed by the revenue courts hence the plea regarding jurisdiction should not be entertained at the stage of writ in view of the provisions of Section 331 (1-A) of the UP ZA and LR Act. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to a decision dated 14-6-1984 in a proceeding under section 143 of the UP ZA and LR Act and it has been emphasized that the disputed land has been held as Abadi by the Sub Divisional Officer, hence due to the changed circumstance the question of jurisdiction should be entertained and the decrees passed by the revenue courts should be characterised as without jurisdiction. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party stated that the aforesaid judgment is under appeal and operation of the order dated 14-6-1984 has been stayed, hence no question of jurisdiction on that score arises in the present case.;