Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioners were admitted as Asamis and their Pattas were cancelled on 2.5.2001. When the petitioners came to know about this order, they filed a Revision in the year 2015. This Revision was dismissed on 11.4.2018 saying that the Revision was filed beyond the limitation provided for filing a Revision. A further reason for dismissing the Revision was that an Asami Patta was for five years and, therefore, no notice was required before the cancellation of it.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that eviction, even of an Asami, could be done only after putting the Pattedar to notice. He submits that when there was no notice, eviction was bad. Learned counsel further submits that even a trespasser has to be evicted by following the due process of law as has been held by the Supreme Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by Legal Representative Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors. reported in, 1968 AIR(SC) 620. Learned counsel read out paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 and so they are being reproduced here as under: "(10) In Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, 1924 AIR(PC) 144 at p. 147, the Privy Council observed: "In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court." (11) In K.K. Verma v. Naraindas C. Malkani, 1954 ILR(Bom) 950 at p. 957 = (AIR 1954 Bom 358 at p. 360), Chagla, C.J. stated that the law in India was essentially different from the law in England. He observed: "Under the Indian law the possession of a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by law. Although he may not have a right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy his possession is juridical and that possession is protected by statute. Under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant may sue for possession against his landlord if the landlord deprives him of possession otherwise than in due course of law, but a trespasser who has 'been thrown out of possession cannot go to Court under s. 9 and claim possession against the true Owner." (12) In Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das, 1958 2 ILR(All) 394 at p. 404 = (AIR(10) In Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, 1924 AIR(PC) 144 at p. 147), the Privy Council observed: "In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court." (11) In K.K. Verma v. Naraindas C. Malkani, 1954 ILR(Bom) 950 at p. 957 = (AIR 1954 Bom 358 at p. 360), Chagla, C.J. stated that the law in India was essentially different from the law in England. He observed: "Under the Indian law the possession of a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by law. Although he may not have a right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy his possession is juridical and that possession is protected by statute. Under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant may sue for possession against his landlord if the landlord deprives him of possession otherwise than in due course of law, but a trespasser who has 'been thrown out of possession cannot go to Court under s. 9 and claim possession against the true Owner." (12) In Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das, 1958 2 ILR(All) 394 at p. 404 = (AIR 1959 All 1 at p.4), the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed: "No question of title either of the plaintiff or of the defendant can be raised or gone into in that case (under. s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act). The plaintiff will be entitled to succeed without proving any title on which he can fall back upon and the defendant cannot succeed even though he may be in a position to establish the: best of all titles. The restoration of possession in such a suit is, however, always subject to a regular title suit and the person who has the real title or even the better title cannot, therefore, be prejudiced in any way by a decree in such a suit. It will always be open to him to establish his title in a regular suit and to recover back possession." The High Court further observed: "Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual' possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause. As observed by Edge, C.J., in Wali Ahmed Khan v. Ayodhya Kundu,1981 13 ILR(All) 537 at p. 556: "The object of the section was to drive the person who wanted to eject a person into the proper court and to prevent them from going with a high hand and ejecting such persons." ....................... (15) In our opinion, the law on this point has been correctly stated by the Privy Council, by Chagla, C.J., and by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the cases cited above. (16) For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the High Court erred in quashing the order of the Board of Revenue. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs, judgment of the High Court set aside and the order of the Board of Revenue restored. 1959 All 1 at p.4), the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed: "No question of title either of the plaintiff or of the defendant can be raised or gone into in that case (under. s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act). The plaintiff will be entitled to succeed without proving any title on which he can fall back upon and the defendant cannot succeed even though he may be in a position to establish the: best of all titles. The restoration of possession in such a suit is, however, always subject to a regular title suit and the person who has the real title or even the better title cannot, therefore, be prejudiced in any way by a decree in such a suit. It will always be open to him to establish his title in a regular suit and to recover back possession." The High Court further observed: "Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual' possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause. As observed by Edge, C.J., in Wali Ahmed Khan v. Ayodhya Kundu,1981 13 ILR(All) 537 at p. 556: "The object of the section was to drive the person who wanted to eject a person into the proper court and to prevent them from going with a high hand and ejecting such persons." ....................... (15) In our opinion, the law on this point has been correctly stated by the Privy Council, by Chagla, C.J., and by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the cases cited above. (16) For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the High Court erred in quashing the order of the Board of Revenue. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs, judgment of the High Court set aside and the order of the Board of Revenue restored."
(3.) Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and section 131 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') provide for a suit for eviction. Under such circumstances, a suit had to be filed.;