K. P. Singh. J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's writ petition arising out of a suit for ejectment under Sec. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties. All the revenue courts have decreed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by their judgments the defendant-petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. One of the grounds in the writ petition is that the relief claimed in the suit was regarding demolition of a construction over the disputed land. Therefore, the revenue courts had no jurisdiction to grant the aforesaid relief.
(2.) I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition. I find that the second appellate court has made the following observation in its judgment dated 23-9-1972 vide para 5 ".........Their correct interpretation is occupation of land for whatever purposes of land it may be, but the only condition is that it must be a piece of land as defined in section 3 (14) of U. P. Act I of 1951. If it is such a piece of land suit for getting it vacated by the trespasser which may include demolition of any construction would lie in the revenue court. This question has already been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 594/63 (1966 RD page 1). Thus the suit was definitely maintainable before the revenue Court. " Against the judgment of the second appellate court a review petition was filed which also stood dismissed through the judgment dated 3-11-1976. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the Board of Revenue has patently erred in relying upon a decision which was no longer a good law. He has also emphasised that the review petition was also wrongly dismissed by the learned Member on the ground that the discovery of new authorities could not be a ground for review.
(3.) IN my opinion the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are well founded. IN 1968 AWR 731 Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar a Full Bench of this Court has observed as below : ".........We, however, with great respect, differ from the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Mukteshwari Prasad Tewari v. Ram Wali that whenever a suit is for demolition and possession against a trespasser it must always be held that the main relief was that of possession. We are of the view that the determination of the question as to which out of the several reliefs arising from the same cause of action is the main relief will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Further we are of the view that where, on the basis of a cause of action- (a) the main relief is cognizable by a revenue court the suit would be cognizable by the revenue court only. The fact that the ancillary reliefs claimed are cognizable by civil court would be immaterial for determining the proper forum for the suit ; (b) the main relief cognizable by the civil court the suit would be cognizable by the civil court only and the ancillary reliefs, which could be granted by the revenue court may also be granted by the civil court. We are also of the view that the above principle will apply also to a suit for injunction and demolition relating to agricultural land and brought against a trespasser. With great respect to Hon'ble Judges who took a different view it is not possible for us to arrive at the conclusion that as against trespassers the main relief must always be that of possession only. The argument that the definition of the land has slightly changed, and, therefore, the old case law on the point cannot be at all accepted as good law has not appealed to us. It has to be remembered that so far as the plaintiff is concerned he never intended to make any construction on his land and wants to get back its vacant possession. Therefore, the slight change in the definition of land (so as to exclude the land built upon) can hardly affect the question of jurisdiction. " The full bench quoted above also observed as below : " It appears from the judgment of the learned Munsif that the real and substantial relief sought in the suit was that of injunction and demolition and the relief of possession was merely an ancillary relief. The learned Munsif rightly held that where the revenue court was not competent to grant all the reliefs arising out of one and the same cause of action and the main relief was that of injunction and demolition the suit would lie in the civil court. " ;