GOPAL NARAIN Vs. KANCHANLAL
LAWS(ALL)-1971-4-25
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 23,1971

GOPAL NARAIN Appellant
VERSUS
KANCHANLAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHITAL PRASAD V. BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BHAGWATI SINGH VS. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1978-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(ALL)-1972-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
GULZARI LAL VS. BABU RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-23] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

R.B.Misra, J. - (1.)THE present Spe cial Appeal arises out of consolidation pro ceedings. The dispute between the parties relates to plots Nos. 154, 171 and 177. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram were the tenants of these plots. They surrendered them in favour of the land-holder Smt. Rani Chauhani on 14th July, 1943. The land-holder came in possession over the plots. On 9th December, 1944, the land- holder settled the plots with Kanchan Lal, Raghubir, Ram Kishan and Babu Ram (hereinafter to be referred to as the newly inducted tenants).
(2.)IN 1947 the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939 was amended by the U. P. Ten ancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act No. X of 1947). It was designed to give relief to certain tenants who had suffered at the hands of the zamindars. Section 27 (1) of U. P. Act X of 1947 gave relief to tenants who had been ejected under Section 165 or Section 171 or Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 27 of U. P. Act X of 1947 gave relief to such tenants who had surrendered their plots on account of fraud, undue influence or coer cion on the part of the zamindar. It was open to such tenants to apply for reinstate ment within six months from the date of the enforcement of U. P. Act X of 1947.
Gopal Narain and Tula Ram accordingly moved an application for rein statement under sub-section (2) of Sec. 27. They alleged that the surrender was brought about on account of coercion of the Karindas of the land-holder. Their application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 30th August, 1958. An appeal filed against the order dated 30th August, 1958 was also dismissed on 31st October, 1958. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram there upon filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. But before the reference could be finally decided, the vil lage, where the plots in suit are situate was brought under consolidation opera tions.

(3.)SECTION 5 of the U. P. Consoli dation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act) provided for the stay of all proceedings for correction of record and all suits for declaration of rights or for possession of land pending in any Court. This was, however, without pre judice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the matter in dispute before the consolidation authorities. The Board of Re venue accordingly stayed the proceeding before it in view of Section 5 of the Con solidation Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.