Decided on August 30,1965

Mukteshwari Prasad And Another Appellant
Ram Wali And Others Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



B. Dayal, J. - (1.)The following question has been referred to this Bench b a learned single Judge of this Court:
Can the civil court take cognizant of a suit for possession of agricultures land and for demolition of unauthorized construction standing thereon, or of suit merely for demolition of u(sic) authorized construction made on a agricultural land?

(2.)The circumstances under which the question arose may shortly be state as follows: The Plaintiff filed a suit the civil court claiming that the la(sic) was part of the Plaintiff's grove. Before the abolition of zamindari this was his zamindari grove After the abolition of zamindari he became the bhumidhar of the land. Upon a part of this land which was in dispute, the Defendant made unauthorized constructions and thus dispossessed the Plaintiff from that portion over which the construction had been mad. Upon these allegations, the Plaintiff filed the suit and prayed that after demolition of the construction the Plaintiff may be given possession over the land over which construction had been made. The learned single Judge before whom the revision came up for hearing, was of the opinion that. Under Sec. 209 of the UPZA and LR Act, a suit for possession against a trespasser would lie in the revenue court in 1963, when the present suit was filed. In view of the provisions of Sec. 331 of the UPZA and LR Act, he was further of the opinion that since the relief of possession could be granted by the revenue court, this case was cognizable by the revenue court as the cause of action for relief of delivery of possession and for removal of unauthorized construction was the same The learned Judge, however, felt difficulty on account of the observations in the case of Angnu v/s. Mahabir and Anr. (1)( : 1954 AWR 513: AIR 1954 All. 768). "hat was a case under the U.P. Tenancy Act and the suit being against a person who had made unauthorized construe on over the land, it was conceded by the learned Counsel for both the sides lat the suit could not lie in the revenue court. This concession of the learned Counsel was fully justified because under the U.P. Tenancy Act a suit against a trespasser could only lie in the revenue court Under Sec. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Full Bench of this Court in D.N. Rage Kazi Mohd. Haider (2) (1946 AWR (3) held that Sec. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act could apply against a trespasser (sic)0 was claiming to be a tenant of the (sic)d for agricultural purposes. Since (sic)e trespasser in that case had made instructions over the land, obviously could not be claiming as a tenant the land for agricultural purposes, inequity it was held in that Division Bench case of Angnu v/s. Mahabir and Anr. (1) (supra) that the suit did (the) lie in the revenue Court and was nizable by a Civil Court. That case is, therefore, entirely distinguishable and does not affect the decision in the present case which is under the UPZA and LR Act. Here Under Sec. 209 of the Act, a suit can be filed in the revenue court against any trespasser whatever be his claim on the land and the considerations, therefore, arising in this case are very different. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant referred to us some other cases of this Court also which were also under the U.P. Tenancy Act and in view of the difference between the two Acts mentioned above, we consider it unnecessary to consider those cases and in detail.
(3.)In the present case, since the relief claimed by the Plaintiff is for possession over the land, this relief is obviously covered by Sec. 209 of the UPZA and LR Act, a suit for that purpose lies in the revenue Court. The Explanation added to Sec. 331 of the UPZA and LR Act makes it quite clear by providing, "if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted." Since the relief for possession can be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that in the civil court a further relief for demolition of the construction could also be added to the main relief. The real reason why the Plaintiff had to come to court is that he had been dispossessed, from the land and as long as the revenue court can give him relief and restore him to possession, it cannot be. denied that the revenue court can give him relief upon that cause of action and as such the suit clearly lies in the revenue court.

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