S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The facts as alleged in the affidavit supporting the petition are these : The petitioners Raghuraj Narain and Raghukul Narain claim to be the bhumidhars of a large area of land including the plots in dispute. The respondents lay a rival claim to this land.
(3.) In 1949, proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P.C. had to be initiated by the authorities with regard to this land, the petitioners and the respondents denying one anther's possession. Ultimately, under the direction of the High Court, an order under Sec. 146, Cr. P. C. was passed as no decision could be arrived at as regards possession and parties were directed to file a civil suit. On 16th November 1954 the petitioners Raghuraj Narain and Raghukul Narain filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge of Meerut for a declaration that the petitioners were bhumidhars of the land in dispute. The respondents 3 to 35 were the contesting defendants in that suit. They pleaded that they had be-come the Sirdars of the land. The date of the filing of the suit is important, as one of the questions in issue in this petition is whether an amendment of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, which came into effect in 1956 and which directed the Civil Court to remit to the revenue court an issue whether any party to the suit is or is not a sirdar, would apply to a suit filed before the amendment became law. However, to continue the narrative of facts on 17-12-1957 the learned Civil Judge passed an order referring the issue relating to the respondent's claim to be Sirdars to the revenue court for decision. This order was passed under Sec. 332B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 as amended in 1954 and again in 1956. In pursuance of the order of the learned Civil Judge the record was sent to the revenue court for a decision on the issue framed by the Civil Court. But the revenue court took the view that it had no jurisdiction to decide the issue, and on 31-1-58 it passed an order returning the record to the learned Civil Judge. On 15-3-58 the matter was reconsidered by the Civil Court when the learned Civil Judge reiterated his previous decision. He added the observation that the revenue court could not have questioned the correctness of the Civil Court's order sending the case to it for decision. Accordingly it sent the record back to the revenue court. But the latter court, too, stuck to its original decision that it had no jurisdiction. It also observed that its decision was final and was not subject to revision or review by the Civil Court.;