K.P.Singh - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the judgment of Sri B. K. Tandon, I.A.S. Member, Board of Revenue, dated 17-2-1978 whereby the two second appeals were decided and the claim of opposite parties no. 1 to 4 in the present writ petition has been accepted.
(2.) OPPOSITE parties nos. 1 to 4 in the present writ petition are legal representatives of Smt. Ram Jiyaee who had filed an objection under section 240 (g) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and had claimed several plots as her tenancy and had prayed for correction of the compensation roll in respect of the disputed plots. The petitioners had contested the claim of Smt. Ram Jiyaee and had asserted that they had acquired Adhivasi and Sirdari rights in the disputed plots. The trial court through Annexure I attached with the writ petition had partly accepted the claim of the objector Smt. Ram Jiyaee and had rejected her claim in respect of some disputed plots. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the petitioners as well as the contesting opposite parties preferred appeals which were allowed by the lower appellate court through its judgment dated 20-9-1972 contained in Annexure II attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court the contesting opposite parties Suraj Pal and others had preferred two appeals which were decided in their favour through the judgment of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 17-2-1978. Against the judgment of the second appellate court, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the above noted writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the judgment of the second appellate court on the following grounds: Firstly, it has been contended before me that Udit Narayan was a co- tenure holder of the disputed plots with Smt. Ram Jiyaee, therefore, the second appellate court has patently erred in holding that the disputed plots belonged to Smt. Ram Jiyaee alone. According to the learned counsel finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court has been disturbed by the second appellate court without any valid ground in law. It has been emphasised in this connection that the admission of Smt. Ram Jiyaee in her application for acquisition of Bhumi- dhari sanad has been ignored, therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is to the effect that a remand order had been passed on the earlier occasion whereby Udit Narayan was held as co-tenure-holder of the disputed plots and that remand order has not been taken into account by the Second appellate court, therefore, its judgment should be quashed. Third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the second appellate court has given judgment after three months from the date of the arguments heard in the case, therefore, the impugned judgment is not an honest judgment and should be quashed. Fourth contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is to the effect that since the second appellate court has disturbed the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court, against the decisions of the highest court reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1097 and AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1203 and various other cases, therefore, the impugned judgment should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the second appellate court for reconsideration. Lastly, it has been urged that the second appellate court has taken into consideration a written argument which was filed in the case behind the back of the petitioners, therefore the impugned judgment should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the second appellate court. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has refuted all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and it has been emphasised that the impugned judgment of the second appellate court is strictly in accordance with law and does not suffer from any error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. It has also been emphasized that the petitioners have made wrong allegations in their writ petition regarding written argument and also with regard to the claim of Udit Narain which have been properly dealt with by the second appellate court and does not suffer from any apparent error of law, therefore, the impugned judgment should be confirmed.
(3.) I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. I think that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. As regards the first contention it is noteworthy that the claim of Udit Narayan has been rightly negatived in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment dated 17-2-1978. A Division Bench of this court has held in Ragho Ram v. Ram Swarup, 1968 ALJ 167 as to who could acquire Bhumidhari Sanad. In the present case there is no evidence that Udit Narayan was a co-tenure- holder of the disputed plots. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that admission of Smt. Ram Jiyaee had not been taken into account in the application moved by her for acquiring Bhumidhari Sanad is not quite correct on the observations made by the second appellate court in paragraph 18 of its judgment. The application has not been attached with the writ petition, therefore, it is difficult to hold that the impugned judgment suffers from any error of law due to non-consideration of the alleged admission by Smt. Ram Jiyaee. I think that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the second appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion that Smt. Ram Jiyaee was the only tenure holder of the disputed plots. The petitioners have failed to supply relevant material to demonstrate that the finding stands vitiated due to non- consideration of any evidence on record.;