RAHIMUDDIN SHEIKH AND ANR. Vs. TRILOK CHANDRA ROY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil rule arises out of an order passed by the Adhi Conciliation Board, directing the ejectment of the Petitioners from the land In dispute comprising of about 11/2 Bighas of land, which decision was confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Dhubri, on 12 -9 -62. It is this decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, that is questioned before us in this civil rule.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated. The Respondents 1 and 2 purchased the property in dispute in the year 1955. One of these Respondents is a blind man and the other at the time of the purchase was a minor. The case of the Respondents was that the Petitioners were adhiars on their land and that as the land is required for their personal cultivation, they not having enough in their possession, and as the Petitioners won in possession of nearly 20 Bighas of land, much more than 10 Bighas which is the minimum prescribed under the Assam Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, 1948 (Assam Act XII of 1948), they accordingly asked for the relief of ejectment. The Petitioners while conceding in their written statement that they were adhiars claimed that they were not in possession of more than 10 Bighas of land and that, therefore, they could not be evicted. They further pleaded that as on an earlier occasion in the year 1956 -57, the present Respondents 1 and 2 had applied for delivery of possession of this very land by ejecting the Petitioners there from, which prayer was rejected by the Adhi Conciliation Board on 22 -7 -58 and the same confirmed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal, ho present application for ejectment made to the Adhi conciliation Board was barred by res judicata and could not have been entertained. It was further contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, to us that the present application made to the Adhi Conciliation Board amounted to an application for review of the previous order, and therefore, not maintainable, there being no specific provision, authorising the Adhi Conciliation Board to review their own previous decision.

(3.) IT has been, found by the Adhi Conciliation Board as well as by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Petitioners were in possession of nearly 18 Bighas of cultivable land, and that, therefore, as this extent is far in excess of the minimum of 10 Bighas of land, the Respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to ask for the eviction of the Petitioners from the land in dispute, They further held that as one of the Respondents is blind and the other was a minor at the time of the acquisition of the land, they must be regarded as entitled to have personal cultivation through servants, and thus are entitled to ask for possession. Both the courts below found that the case put forward by the Petitioners that they were in possession of the land for more than 20 years and that, therefore, they had acquired a right of occupancy, was not proved. The finding is that the Petitioners were in possession only for five or six years.