# Shiv Charan & Ors v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 797
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-27
- **Case number:** J. Writ B No. 1841 of 2019
- **Bench:** Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-charan-ors-v-board-of-revenue-ors-51658
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 -
Sections 171 & 172 - U.P. Urban Areas
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1956 - Sections 5 & 8 - U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Section 230 - Writ petition
challenging orders dated 16.04.2019 (Board of
Revenue), 20.11.2018 (Commissioner), and
24.08.2018 (Sub Divisional Officer) in suit for
ejectment - Held, concurrent findings by all
three revenue courts that zamindari not
abolished in non-ZA area and suit maintainable
under U.P. Tenancy Act - Petitioners failed to
prove land demarcation under Section 5 of 1956
Act to vest in St. under Section 8 - U.P.
Tenancy Act not repealed by U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, as not listed in First Schedule - No
procedural irregularity or perversity in findings -
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not to
interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent
manifest error. (Para 21-51)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,842 of 65,999. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39842 for what follows._

3 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
797

२५. अिः यावचका किरस्ट्त की जािी है एवां अांिररम आिेर्श
भी रद्ध (vacate) वकया जािा है।
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 797
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Writ B No. 1841 of 2019

Shiv Charan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Harsih Chandra Singh, Sri Dharampal
Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish
Kumar Singh, Sri Punit Kumar Gupta

Civil Law - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 -
Sections 171 & 172 - U.P. Urban Areas
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1956 - Sections 5 & 8 - U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Section 230 - Writ petition
challenging orders dated 16.04.2019 (Board of
Revenue), 20.11.2018 (Commissioner), and
24.08.2018 (Sub Divisional Officer) in suit for
ejectment - Held, concurrent findings by all
three revenue courts that zamindari not
abolished in non-ZA area and suit maintainable
under U.P. Tenancy Act - Petitioners failed to
prove land demarcation under Section 5 of 1956
Act to vest in St. under Section 8 - U.P.
Tenancy Act not repealed by U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, as not listed in First Schedule - No
procedural irregularity or perversity in findings -
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not to
interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent
manifest error. (Para 21-51)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. St. of M.P. Vs Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.,
(2003) 7 SCC 389

2. M/s Gammon India Ltd. Vs Spl. Chief
Secretary, (2006) 3 SCC 354

3. Kashi Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs Jaganath,
(2003) 8 SCC 740

4. A.K.K. Nambiar Vs U.O.I., AIR 1970 SC 652

5. St. of Raj. Vs M/s Sindhi Film Exchange, AIR
1974 Raj 31

6. Awadhesh Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2023 (12)
ADJ 554

7. St. of Jharkhand Vs Linde India Limited, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1660

8. Chandrika (Dead) by LRs Vs Sudama (Dead)
Thr. LRs., (2019) 5 SCC 790

9. Bansraj Vs Ram Naresh, (2020) 5 ADJ 10

10. Mahant Dooj Das Vs Udasin Panchayati Bara
Akhara, (2008) 12 SCC 181

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Harish
Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners; Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Punit
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent no.4.

2. By means of this writ petition the
petitioners/Defendants have challenged the
Order dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure-19)
passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at
Allahabad in Second Appeal No.422 of
2019 (Shiv Charan and others versus Shekh
Sauduzzuma; the judgment/order dated
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20.11.2018 (Annexure-16) passed by the
Learned Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham
Division, Banda in Case No.01600 of 2018
-
Computerized
Case
No.C201807000001600 (Shiv Charan and
others versus Shekh Sauduzzuma), and the
judgment/decree
dated
24.08.2018
(Annexure- 14) passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Baberu (Banda) in Case
No. 1648 of 2016 - Computerized No.
T201607110111648 (Shekh Sauduzzuma
versus Shiv Charan and others).

3. The controversy involved in this
case pertains to the plots of land having
Gata Nos. 4335, 4336, 4341, 4344 and
4334 measuring 1.518 hectare, situated at
Village Ladakapurva, Tehsil and District
Banda.

4. The facts in nutshell that culled out
from the pleadings as available on record
are that the Respondent No. 4/Plaintiff filed
a suit for ejectment under section 171 &
172 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 against
the petitioners/defendants in the Court of
Assistant Collector First-Class, Banda, on
the ground that the they are changing the
nature of the land and are also trying to
unlawfully transfer the same.

5. The averments in the plaint were to
the effect that the Respondent/plaintiff are
the Co-Zamindar and Lambardar of Khata
Kewat Patti No. 1, Muhal Yusuf Zama, duly
appointed by Collector Banda vide order
dated 14.07.2015 and the land in question
that situates in 'non-ZA area', was given on
lease
to
defendants'
father
namely
Kandhilal whose name stood recorded in
Ziman 8 and consequent upon his death the
names of defendants came to be mutated in
the Khatuani in Ziman 8 (hereditary tenant
with non-transferable rights).

6. A Written Statement was filed by
the defendants pleading therein that the
Zamindari stands abolished by the UP
Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act 1956 and the land stood
vested with the State Government by virtue
of section 8 thereof. It was also alleged that
the United Provinces Tenancy Act 1939
stands repealed by section 84 of the said
Act of 1956 as such the suit is not
maintainable.

7. The application for interim
injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff
is said to have been allowed by the trial
Court vide order dated 28.04.2017 against
which the petitioners/defendants filed a
Revision before the Court of Commissioner
(Respondent No. 2), however, the Revision
preferred by the petitioners/defendants was
dismissed by the Court of Commissioner
on 20.12.2017 which is said to have not
been challenged further.

8. The learned trial court framed six
Issues including issue No. 3 to the effect as
to whether Zamindari in the area in
question has been abolished, as stated in
Paragraphs No. 7, 12 and 13 of the Written
Statement. The issues as framed by the
court below are reproduced here under:

1- क्य व ि पत्र में अांदकत शहरी िींि री की भूदम
क नम्बरि र प्रबधधक व सह िमींि र है िैस दक व ि पत्र की ध र
1 में कथन दकय गय है?

2- क्य प्रदतव िी गण द्व र क श्तक री
कताव्यों/अदधक रों क दव०भू० में उल्लांिन दकय गय है िो दक
क रण प्रदतव िीगण ध र -171-172 यू०पी० टेनेधसी एक्ट के
अधतगात बेिखल होने योग्य है?

3- क्य दव०भू० की िमींि री सम प्त की ि चुकी है
िैस दक प्रदतव ि पत्र की ध र -7 एव ध र -12-13 में आक्षेप
दकय गय है यदि ह ाँ तो इसक प्रभ व
3 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
799

4- क्य दव०भू० की ब वत कोई व ि हेतु उत्पधन
नहीं हआ िैस दक प्रदतव ि पत्र की ध र 15 में आक्षेप है?

5- क्य प्रदतव िीगण दवशेष हि ा व िी से प ने के
अदधक री हैं िैस दक प्रदतव ि पत्र की ध र -17 के आक्षेप है

6- क्य व ि पोषणीय है"

9. The trial court of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Baberu decreed the suit on
24.08.2018. While deciding Issue No. 3
negatively
against
the
defendants
it
recorded
a
categorical
finding
that
Zamindari with respect to the land in
dispute has not been abolished. The court
below also returned a finding that the
allegation
that
zamindari
has
been
abolished
vide
notification
dated
24.06.1961
as
relied
upon
by
the
defendants is not substantiated by any
evidence as such the suit is maintainable
under the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act.
The extract of the relevant finding is quoted
below:

".......इसदलये उपरोि दववेचन और वदणात
दबधिुओां के प्रक श में व ि दबधिु 03 एवां व ि नां0 6 प्रदतव िीगण
के दवरूद्ध नक र त्मक दनणीत दकय ि त है और ये अवध ररत
दकय ि त है दक दवव दित भूदम िो वताम न में भी एन० िेड०ए०
में ििा है िमीधि री की भूदम है। प्रदतव िीगण दिमन 8 के क श्तक र
रहे है और उि व ि यू०पी० टीनेधसी एक्ट के अधतगात पोषणीय है।
इस सम्बधध में 2001 (92) आर डी पेि 48 दहधिी भी थपष्ट
है।........"

10. The learned trial court, while
deciding Issue No.1 recorded a finding that
the
Respondent
No.
4/Plaintiff
was
appointed as Lambardar vide order dated
14.07.2015 passed by the Collector, Banda.
The extract of the relevant finding recorded
by the trial court is quoted below:

"....दवव दित भूदम ग्र म ल़ि क पुरव एन०िेड०ए
० मोह ल यूसुि िम दिमन 8 में प्रदतव िीगण क श्तक र अांदकत है
व िी ने सन् 1417- 1420 ि0 की नकल खेवट चौस ल ग्र म
ल़ि क पुरव मोह ल यूसुि िम की प्रथतुत की है। खेवट में अांदकत
िमीनि र न के न म अांदकत है और 1420 ि० में तहसीलि र
ब ाँि के मु0 नां0 312 त ० िै0 05.02.2013 में आिेश
दवर सत ििा है दक शेख ह िी उज्िम पुत्र मसूि उज्िम क न म
ख ररि करके इसके थथ न पर व ररस शेख सऊि उज्िम पुत्र शेख
ह िी उज्िम दनव सी बलखण्डीन क ब ाँि क न म बर सतन ििा
है, इससे थपष्ट है दक व िी सह िमीनि र मोह ल यूसुि िम क है।
पत्र वली में व िी द्व र प्रथतुत की गई नकल िैसल दिल दधक री /
कलेक्टर ब ाँि ध र - 45 यू०पी० लैण्ड रेवेधयू एक न न िेड एररय
दनणाय दतदथ 14.07.2015 के अनुस र व िी को ग्र म
ल़ि क पुरव मोह ल यूिुि िम पट्टी नां० 1 एवां ग्र म भव नीपुरव
मोह ल यूसुि िम पट्टी नां० 1 क लम्बरि र दनयुि दकय गय है
और धय य लय ने यह आिेश आयुि महोिय के अपीलीय आिेश
09.05.2013 क सम िर करते हुये उपदिल दधक री ब ाँि /
तहसीलि र
ब ाँि
की
सांथतुदत
आख्य
09.06.2015/03.06.2015 क सधिभा लेकर दकय है।
उपरोि अदभलेखीय स क्ष्य से व िी व ि दबधिु नां० 1 को दसद्ध करने
में सिल है दक व िी सहिमींि र एवां लम्बरि र भी है। ति नुस र
व ि दबधिु सक र त्मक रूप से तय दकय ि त gSA**

11. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgement and decree dated 24.08.2018 the
petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal
under Section 265 of the U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939 in the Court of Commissioner,
Chitrakoot Dham, Banda Division which
was registered as Case No. 01600/2018.
The First Appellate court affirmed the
judgement passed by the trial court by
declining to interfere with the same. The
said appeal was finally dismissed vide
judgement and order dated 20.11.2018.

12. The first appellate court while
deciding the appeal vide judgment and
order
dated
20.11.2018
returned
a
categorical finding to the effect that despite
sufficient opportunity having been given to
the defendants to adduce evidence to
establish the alleged abolition of zamindari,
have failed to substantiate the said
allegations. The findings recorded by the
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
first appellate court in this regard are as
under:

"....अधीनथथ धय य लय में प्रश्नगत व ि में 06
व ि दबधिु दनदमात दकये गये िो व िी प्रदतव िीगण के कथनों के
आध र पर दनणीत दकये गये। व ि के पोषणीयत दबधिु पर अवर
धय य लय द्व र दववेचन की गयी है दक यदि दवव दित भूदम की
िमींि री सम प्त होन म न दलय ि य तो अपीलकत ागण को
ग ाँवसभ य र ज्य सरक र से पट्ट की क याव ही होती और उसके
दलए आवांटन पत्र वली क सृिन दकय ि त । अपीलकत ागण को
र ज्य सरक र व ग ाँवसभ की ओर से कोई दवव दित भूदम क पट्ट
नहीं दकय गय क्योंदक इस सम्बधध में अपीलकत ागण द्व र कोई
स क्ष्य प्रथतुत नहीं दकय गय । इससे थपष्ट है दक दवव दित भूदम क
पट्ट अपीलकत ागण को िमींि र द्व र प्रित्त दकय गय थ ।
िनसूचन अदधक र से प्र प्त सूचन के आध र पर दवव दित भूदम
िमींि र से पट्टे के रुप में प्र प्त हुई थी दिसपर अपीलकत ागण दिमन8 मौरुसी क श्तक र के रुप में ििा चले आ रहे हैं। इससे थपष्ट है दक
01 िुल ई 1961 को दवव दित भूदम कृदष योग्य नहीं थी बदल्क
िमींि री भूदम थी, दिसके आध र पर भूदम र िथव अदभलेखों में
न न िेड० एररय की खतौनी में ििा है। यदि दवव दित भूदम की
िमींि री सम प्त हो गयी होती तो प्रश्नगत भूदम िेड०एररय की
खतौनी में ििा की ि ती। अधीनथथ धय य लय में सांलग्न र िथव
पररषि, उ०प्र० लखनऊ के पररषि िेश दिन ांक 15 िून 2012 में
थपष्ट दकय गय है दक न न०िेड०एररय की िमींि री सम प्त दकये
ि ने के िलथवरुप अरबो रुपय प्रदतकर के रुप में दिय ि न होग ।
इसी दृदष्ट को ध्य न में रखते हुए नगर क्षेत्रों की िमींि री न तोडे ि ने
क दनणाय दलय गय है...."

13. Assailing the judgment passed by
the first appellate court a Second Appeal
was preferred by the petitioners/defendants
before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad
as Second Appeal No. 422 of 2019. The
said Second Appeal preferred by the
petitioners/defendants was also dismissed
by the Board of Revenue vide its
judgement/order dated 16.04.2019.

14. While deciding the Second
Appeal, the learned Board of Revenue
considered the questions of a lease having
admittedly been granted by the zamindar in
favour of late Kandhilal which came to be
recorded vide order dated 08.09.1961,
whereas the date of abolition of zamindari
is stated to be 24.06.1961 and observed that
as a natural corollary of the aforesaid
pleadings/admission on the part of the
appellants, the lease would either be
rendered void, as the zamindar could not
have been competent to grant the lease after
24.06.1961 i.e. the date of alleged abolition
of zamindari or it would amount to an
admission on the part of the appellants that
zamindari existed after the date of alleged
abolition of zamindari, otherwise there
would have been no occasion for the
zamindar to grant lease in favour of their
father namely Khandi son of Babu Lal. The
relevant portion of the findings recorded by
the learned Board of Revenue are extracted
below:

".....उनक यह भी कथन है दक अपील थी द्व र
अपने थवत्व क आध र वह पट्ट बत य ि त है दिसके ि दखल
ख ररि क आिेश दिन ांक 08.09.1961 को तत्क लीन
परगन दधक री िव र दकय गय और र िथव अदभलेखों में अांकन
दिन ांक 18.11.1961 को हुआ। उनक यह तका है दक अपील थी
द्व र दकसी भी थतर पर िमींि र द्व र पट्ट प्रि न दकए ि ने के तथ्य
से इधक र नहीं दकय गय है, िब दक अपील थी िव र थवांय ही
प्रश्नगत सम्पदत से सांबांदधत िींि री क उधमूलन दिन ांक
24.06.1961 को होन बत य ि रह है, अतः यदि तका हेतु
अपीलकत ागण की ब त थवीक र कर ली ि ये तो थवांय उधहीं के
तको के अनुस र उनके दपत ाँ कांिी पुत्र ब बू ल ल को िमींि र द्व र
िमींि री उधमूलन हो ि ने के उपर धत पट्ट प्रि न हो नहीं दकय ि
सकत थ एवां ऐसी पररदथथदत में अपील थी के पक्ष में दनष्प दित पट्टे
को दवदध शूधय िथत वेि के रूप में सांज्ञ दनत करन होग , दिसके
िलथवरूप अपीलकत ा के थवत्व सांबांधी इधर ि क आध र ही
सम प्त हो ि येग , इसदलए अपीलकत ागण िव र प्रथतुत दकय गय
तका दनत धत भ्र मक एवां थवांय अपीलकत ा िव र दनम्न धय य लयों के
समक्ष दकए गए कथन के दवरुद्ध होने के क रण थवीक र दकए ि ने
योग्य नहीं है। उनक यह भी कथन है दक प्रदतपक्षी द्व र प्रश्नगत
सम्पदत्त क थवरूप बिल कर दवक्रय दकये ि ने सम्बधधी प्रय सों के
ब वत व ि पत्र में दकये गये अदभवचनों के दवपरीत कोई कथन
प्रदतव िीगण द्व र अपने प्रदतव ि पत्र में नहीं दकय गय है बदल्क
थवयां को प्रश्नगत सम्पदत्त क व थतदवक भू-थव मी/ भूदमधर होने क
3 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
801
कथन कर थवयां को सभी अदधक र प्र प्त होन बत य गय है िो दक
थपष्ट रूप से िेणी 8 के मौरूसी क श्तक र सम्बधधी दनयमों के
दवपरीत होने के क रण अपील थी के दवपरीत अवध रण दकये ि ने
हेतु पय ाप्त है।....."

15. The learned Board of Revenue
also considered the question of the impact
of a notification issued under Section 8 of
the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition
Act, 1956 that vests with State all
agricultural areas falling under the urban
areas. The Board of Revenue also recorded
a finding that since the land in question
stands recorded as 'non-ZA area' the
burden of proving the fact of there being an
identification/demarcation as per Section 5
of the Act of 1956 prior to coming into
operation of Section 8 of the Act of 1956
lied upon the appellants but they failed in
adducing any evidence in this regard
despite having been granted sufficient
opportunity.
The
Board
of
Revenue
recorded a categorical finding that the
provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 are
applicable in the area in question and the
appellants cannot be taken to be anything
more than a hereditary tenant of Ziman-8.
The findings recorded by the learned Board
of Revenue in this regard are as under:

".............. अतः पक्षो के मध्य मूल दवव ि
इस आशय क है दक प्रश्नगत सम्पदत्त पर उत्तर प्रिेश क श्तक री
अदधदनयम, 1939 के प्र दवध न वताम न में ल गू है अथव नहीं।
यद्यदप उि प्रश्न एक तथ्य त्मक प्रश्न है और तथ्य त्मक प्रश्नो पर
दद्वतीय अपीलीय धय य लय द्व र स म धयतः दवच र नही दकय ि त
है, परधतु वताम न प्रकरण में उि तथ्य त्मक प्रश्न क दवश्लेषण इस
धय य लय द्व र दकय ि न धय यदहत में आवश्यक प्रतीत होत है।

उत्तर प्रिेश शहरी क्षेत्र िमीि री दवन श एवां भूदम
व्यवथथ अदधदनयम, 1956 में दिये गये प्र दवध नों के अनुस र
अदधदनयम की ध र 8 के अधतगात कृदष क्षेत्र क दचधह ांकन थथल
पर करने के उपर धत उसे ध र 5 में आयुि द्व र पुष्ट दकय ि येग
दिसके उपर धत र ज्य सरक र द्व र अदधक ररक गिट में प्रक शन
दकये ि ने की दतदथ से हर वह क्षेत्र िो दक ध र 5 के अधतगात पूवा
में प्रक दशत हो चुक हो, से िमीि री सम प्त होकर सम्बदधधत कृदष
क्षेत्र सभी अदधभ रो से मुि होकर र ज्य सरक र में दनदहत म न
ि येग । अदधदनयम की ध र 8 यह थपष्ट रूप से प्र दवध दनत करती
है दक अदधदनयम, 1956 के प्र दवध न दसिा उधही भूदमयों पर ल गू
होगे िो दक थथल पर कृदष क्षेत्र के रूप में दवम न हो तथ भूदम क
दचधह ांकन ध र 4 में दकये ि ने के उपर धत सम्बदधधत कृदष क्षेत्र क
प्रक शन ध र 5 में आपदत्तयों के दनथत रण के उपर धत दकय गय
हो। अदधदनयम, 1956 की ध र 3 से 5 तक में दकसी भी शहरी
सम्पदत्त, िो दक उि अदधदनयम प्रक दशत होने की दतदथ पर कृदष
क्षेत्र रही हो और उस सम्पदत्त के ऊपर उत्तर प्रिेश क श्तक री
अदधदनयम, 1939 के प्र दवध न ल गू रहे हो, के दनध ारण,
दचधह ांकन, सीम ांकन एवां प्रक शन की दनम्न प्रदकय बत यी गयी है।

अदधदनयम 1956 की ध र 3 के अधतगात र ज्य
सरक र द्व र गिट में प्रक दशत दकये ि ने के उपर धत सवाप्रथम
सीम ांकन (डीम केशन) अदधक री दनध ाररत प्रदकय के अनुस र
शहरी क्षेत्र की सम्पूणा भूदम क परीक्षण करने के उपर धत उन भूदमयों
क दचधह ांकन / दनध ारण करेग िो दक कृदष भूदम के रूप में उपलब्ध
हो और ध र 2(1) (स) के प्रथम परधतुक तथ ध र 2(1) (ि)
से आच्छ दित न हो। तिोपर धत सीम ांकन (डीम केशन) अदधक री
ध र 3 की उपध र 1 के अधीन, अदधसूचन प्रक दशत होने की
दतदथ से 3 महीने के अधिर, अथव ऐसी बढ ई गयी अवदध के
भीतर दिसे र िय सरक र दकसी म मले में दनदश्चत करे, क रण बत ते
हुए अपने सीम ांकन प्रथत वो को आयुि के समक्ष प्रथतुत करेग ।
ध र 4(1) के अधीन प्र प्त उि प्रथत व पर आवश्यक
सांशोधनोपर धत आयुि द्व र दवदहत प्र रूप पर श सकीय र ज्य पत्र में
अथव दकसी अधय रीदत से िो र ज्य सरक र दनदश्चत करें, इस प्र रूप
में प्रक दशत कर एग दक सीम ांकन अदधक री द्व र दिय गय प्रथत व
दिस कृदष क्षेत्र के सीम ांकन से सम्बदधधत है एवां दिस कृदष क्षेत्र के
सीम ांकन पश्च त भूदमयों को सूदचत दकय गय हो, उि नोदटस में
दनदिाष्ट थथ नो पर दनरीक्षण हेतु उपलब्ध कर य ि येग । उि नोदटस
प्रक दशत होने पर अदधदनयम, 1956 की ध र 4 उपध र (3) के
अधतगात सूदत्रत सम्पदत्त में दहत रखने व ल कोई भी व्यदि अथव
थथ नीय प्र दधक री उपध र (2) के अधीन नोदटस प्रक दशत होने
की दतदथ से 3 म स के भीतर ऐसे अदधक री अथव प्र दधक री के
समक्ष, और ऐसी रीदत से िो दवदहत की ि ये, उि प्रक दशत
प्रथत व पर आपदत्त प्रथतुत कर सकेग । तिोपर धत अदधदनयम की
ध र 4(3) के अधतगात प्रथतुत आपदत्तयों क यथोदचत दनथत रण
दकये ि ने के उपर धत दचधह दधकत क्षेत्रो क अदधतम प्रक शन
अदधदनयम, 1956 की ध र 5 की उपध र (2) के अधतगात
आयुि द्व र श सकीय र ि पत्र में अथव ऐसी रीदत से िो दवदहत
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
की ि ये, इस आशय की नोदटस क प्रक शन दकय ि येग दक
सूदत्रत कृदष क्षेत्रो क अदधतम रूप से सीम ांकन हो गय है। आयुि
द्व र दकये गये अदधतम दनध ारण / प्रक शन के दबरूद्व र िथव पररषि
में अपील योदित दकये ि ने की व्यवथथ िी गयी है और दचधह धतन
/ सीम ांकन सम्बधधी आपदत्तयों के आध र पर र िथव पररषि द्व र
आयुि के दनणाय क धय दयक दववेचन दकये ि ने के उपर धत
दचधह ांकन / सीम कन के सम्बधध में आयुि द्व र दकय गय दनणाय
अदधतम म न ि येग । अदधदनयन की ध र 8 के अधतगात सम्बदधधत
दिले क प्रक शन हो ि ने के उपर धत आयुि द्व र दकय गय
दचधह कन सभी पर ब ध्यक री प्रभ व रखेग और इस प्रक र
सम्बदधधत क्षेत्र की उन भूदमयों से दिनक दचधह कांन अदधतम रूप से
ध र 5 की उपध र (2) के अधतगात हो चुक हो, के सम्बधध में
उत्तर प्रिेश क श्तक री अदधदनयम, 1939 दनरदसत होकर
प्रभ वहीन म न ि येग ।

वताम न प्रकरण में अपील थीद्व र अपने थवत्व को
अदधदनयम 1956 के अधतगात पररपक्व होन बत य ि रह है
िबदक पत्र वली पर उपलब्ध प्रश्नगत सम्पदतत से सम्बदधधत र िथव
अदभलेखों में उि सम्पदत्त नॉन िेड ए० के रूप में ििा है अतः
प्रश्नगत सम्पदत्त से सम्बदधधत दचधह ांकन / सीम ांकन की क याव ही
1961 में दकये गये ध र 8 के प्रक शन के पूवा अमल में ल य
ि न स दबत करने क भ र प्रदतव िी/ अपील थीगण पर म न
ि येग । इस सम्बधध में दवदध क यह सुथथ दपत दसद्ध धत है दक
स क्ष्य प्रथतुत करने क भ र उस व्यदि के कांधो पर होत है िो दक
दकसी ब त अथव तथ्य के अदथतत्व में होने क कथन करत है।
इसी तरह धय य लय के क्षेत्र दधक र के सम्बधध में कोई आपदत्त के
ब वत् म ननीय उच्चतम धय य लय द्व र (ए०आई०आर०, 1966
सुप्रीम कोटा पृष्ठ 1718) में यह थपष्ट रूप से अवध ररत दकय गय
है दक स क्ष्य प्रथतुत करने क भ र उस पक्ष पर ध ररत होत है िो दक
दकसी अदधदनयम में प्र दवध दनत धय दयक दवश्लेषण की प्रदकय के
ल गू न होने के सम्बधध में अथव दकसी धय य लय के क्षेत्र दधक र
उपलब्ध न होने के सम्बधध में कथन करत है। वताम न प्रकरण में
अपील थी द्व र प्रश्नगत सम्पदत्त पर अदधदनयम, 1956 के ल गू
होने के आध र पर अवर धय य लय को क्षेत्र दधक र प्र प्त न होने क
कथन दकय ि रह है अतः यह अपील थी के दलए आवश्यक है
दक वहअदधदनयम 1956 की ध र 3 से ध र 5 तक अपन यी
गयी प्रदकय में प्रश्नगत सम्पदत्त सदम्मदलत होने सम्बधधी स क्ष्य
धय य लय के समक्ष प्रथतुत करते परधतु अपील थी द्व र ऐस कोई भी
अदभलेखीय स क्ष्य अवर धय य लय के समक्ष पत्र वली पर उपलब्ध
नहीं कर य गय है। इस सधिभा में म ननीय उच्चतम धय य लय द्व र
प्रदतप दित दवदधक दसद्व धत " महधत िुिि स बन म उि सीन
पांच यती ब़ि अख ़ि (ए०आई०आर० 2008 (सप्ली०) सुप्रीम
कोटा पृष्ठ 1867) क सधिभा आवश्यक हो ि त है दिसमें सम न
दवषय वथतु के सम्बधध में प ररत दनणाय के प्रथतर 15 में म ननीय
उच्चतम धय य लय द्व र दनम्न दवदधक मत अवध ररत दकय गय है-

"15- ..............................."

अतः म ननीय उच्चतम धय य लय द्व र िी गई उि
धय दयक व्यवथथ के अनुक्रम में प्रश्नगत सम्पदत्त को अदधदनयम
1956 से आच्छ दित नही म न ि सकत । इस प्रक र अपील थी
क यह कथन दक उनके अदधक र िमीि री टूटने के िलथवरूप
पररपक्व हो चुके है, अथाहीन हो ि त है और अपील थी द्व र इस
धय य लय के समक्ष प्रथत दवत दकये गये स रव न दवदधक प्रश्न थवयां में
ही अथाहीन हो ि ते है। चूाँदक अदभलेखो से यह दसद्ध है दक प्रश्नगत
सम्पदत्त पर उत्तर प्रिेश क श्तक री अदधदनयम 1939 के प्र दवध न
पूरी तरह ल गू होते है अतः अपील थी के अदधक र िेणी 8 के
मौरूसी क श्तक र से अदधक नही म ने ि सकते हैं। उत्तर प्रिेश
क श्तक री अदधदनयम के सुसांगत प्र दवध नो के अधतगात अधीनथथ
धय य लय द्व र दिये गये दनणायों में दकसी प्रक र की तथ्य त्मक
अथव दवदधक त्रुदट पररलदक्षत नही होती है. और वताम न दद्वतीय
अपील में दकसी अधय स रव न दवदधक दबधिु क दनदहत होन प्रतीत
नही होत है अतः वताम न दद्वतीय अपील बलहीन होने के क रण
दनरथत होने योग्य प्रतीत होती है।....."

16.

Being
aggrieved
by
the
aforementioned orders passed by the Trial
Court, the Court of Commissioner and the
Board of Revenue, i.e. the Respondents No.
1 to 3, the petitioners have preferred the
instant writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

17. One of the grounds taken in the
writ petition is that the Petitioners were not
afforded adequate opportunity of adducing
evidence to the effect that the land in
dispute was in fact demarcated under
section 5 of the Act though the same is a
question of fact which could have been
proved only if an opportunity to lead
evidence in this regard was given.

18. It has also been pleaded by the
petitioners
that
they
had
filed
an
application dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure
No. 5) under the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but
3 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
803
the same was not decided by the Sub
Divisional Officer on merits.

19. The Respondent No. 4 filed a
Counter Affidavit stating therein that the
application
dated
26.05.2017
was
misconceived as a distinctive issue had
been framed by the Trial Court in this
regard and the decision on the issue
rendered the said application redundant.

20. It has also been stated in the
counter affidavit filed by the Respondent
No. 4 that it is petitioners' own admission
in the written statement filed in the Suit
that they are occupying an area in Mohal
Yusuf
Zaman
itself
amounts
to
an
admission
of
zamindari
of
the
respondent/plaintiff and that it is wellsettled in law that admission is the best
piece of evidence.

21. Before delving into the merits of
the case it would be apt to address the
question raised by this court vide order
dated
19.08.2019
that
whether
after
enforcement of the U.P. Revenue Code,
w.e.f. 11.03.2016, the present Suit that was
filed in the month of May 2016, under the
U.P. Tenancy Act is maintainable. The more
precise statement of the question would be
whether upon enforcement of the U.P.
Revenue Code, does the U.P. Tenancy Act
survive, though not repealed, because the
U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition Act,
1956 has been repealed by the Code.

22. The appropriate answer to the
above question is to be found in the
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of M.P. versus
Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. reported in
(2003) 7 SCC 389 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been pleased to observe
that there is a presumption against repeal
by implication. This is based on the view
that while enacting laws on a particular
subject, the Legislature has a thorough
knowledge of the laws that are already in
force on that subject; therefore, the absence
of a repealing provision in the subsequent
law would imply the intention of the
Legislature that the existing provision
should not be repealed. Moreover, the
Legislature would never intend to create
confusion
by
retaining
conflicting
provisions.The relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid judgement is being extracted
below:

"............13.There
is
presumption
against
a
repeal
by
implication; and the reason of this rule is
based on the theory that the legislature
while enacting a law has complete
knowledge of the existing laws on the same
subject-matter, and therefore, when it does
not provide a repealing provision, the
intention is clear not to repeal the existing
legislation.
[See
:Municipal
Council,
Palaiv.T.J. Joseph[AIR 1963 SC 1561]
,Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd.v.State of
Punjab[AIR 1967 SC 1581] ,Municipal
Corpn. of Delhiv.Shiv Shanker[(1971) 1
SCC 442 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 195] andRatan
Lal Adukiav.Union of India[(1989) 3 SCC
537 : AIR 1990 SC 104] .] When the new
Act contains a repealing section mentioning
the Acts which it expressly repeals, the
presumption against implied repeal of other
laws is further strengthened on the
principleexpressio unius(persone vel rei)est
exclusio alterius. (The express intention of
one person or thing is the exclusion of
another),
as
illuminatingly
stated
inGarnettv.Bradley[(1878) 3 AC 944 :
(1874-80) All ER Rep 648 : 48 LJQB 186 :
39 LT 261 (HL)] . The continuance of the
existing legislation, in the absence of an
express provision of repeal being presumed,
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the burden to show that these has been
repeal by implication lies on the party
asserting the same. The presumption is,
however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred
by
necessary
implication
when
the
provisions of the later Act are so
inconsistent with or repugnant to the
provisions of the earlier Act that the two
cannot stand together. But, if the two can
be read together and some application can
be made of the words in the earlier Act, a
repeal
will
not
be
inferred.
(See
:A.G.v.Moore[(1878) 3 Ex D 276] ,Ratan
Lal case[(1989) 3 SCC 537 : AIR 1990 SC
104]
andR.S.
Raghunathv.State
of
Karnataka[(1992) 1 SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(L&S) 286 : (1992) 19 ATC 507 : AIR 1992
SC 81] .)....."

23. Further, in the case of M/s
Gammon India Ltd. versus Spl. Chief
Secretary and Others reported in (2006) 3
SCC 354 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
been please to observe that if the legislative
intent to supersede the earlier law is
manifested by the enactment of provisions
as to affect such supersession, then it would
amount to a repeal, notwithstanding the
absence of the word 'repeal' in the later
statute. In other words, the intention of the
Legislature has to be inferred from the later
statute to see if it proposed to preserve,
modify, or completely obliterate the rights
and liabilities attached to the earlier statute.
This applies to both express as well as
implied repeal. Thus, an analysis of the
relevant authorities and case laws makes it
clear that whenever an enactment is
repealed
and
is
accompanied
by
a
simultaneous re-enactment, then the reenacted statute is a reflection of a modified
version of the earlier legislation, through
express or implied repeal, as the case may
be.Since Section 230 of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006 repeals enactments
specified in the First Schedule thereof and
the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 does not find
place in the said First Schedule there is no
express repeal nor the two enactments are
shown to be irreconcilable so as to bring
the former law within the sweep of implied
repeal.

24. It has also been contended on
behalf of the petitioner that the first
appellate court has erred in law while
deciding the first appeal without framing
the points of determination. Refuting the
aforesaid plea it has been submitted on
behalf of the respondent that a first appeal
under Section 265 of the U. P. Tenancy Act
or under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue
Code not being an appeal under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the
Code of Civil Procedure would not be
applicable as it does not necessarily require
the judgement of the first appellate court to
state the points for determination. This
court finds substance in the said arguments
advanced on behalf of the respondent.

25. Further, Sri D.P. Singh, the
learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has vehemently
argued that since the affidavit filed by the
respondent/plaintiff by way of evidence
was not in accordance with the provisions
of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual as the
same was not verified hence is not
admissible in evidence. He drew the
attention of the Court to Rules 112, 113 and
118 of Chapter III of the U.P. Revenue
Court Manual. In support of his contention
he placed reliance on the judgements
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of A.K.K. Nambiar vs. Union of
India and another reported in AIR 1970
Supreme
Court
652 and
State
of
Rajasthan versus M/s Sindhi Film
3 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
805
Exchange
reported
in
AIR
1974
Rajasthan 31 (V 61 C11) wherein it has
been held that in the absence of proper
verification, affidavits cannot be admitted
in evidence and the same is no affidavit in
the eye of law.

26. However, during the course of
argument Sri Puneet Gupta, learned counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
respondent/plaintiff has placed before the
Court a certified copy of the affidavit in
question which bears the verification clause
at the back of it. Although the same has
been strongly objected to by Sri D.P.Singh
the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, contending that the respondent
has no right to file the same at this belated
stage. Confronting the said objection, Sri
Puneet Gupta learned counsel for the
respondent no. 4 submitted that since this
aspect of the matter challenging the
irregularity in the 'form' of the affidavit
was never raised by the petitioner earlier
therefore there was no occasion for the
respondents to bring the certified copy of
the affidavit on record.

27. In any case, the certified copy of
the affidavit as produced by the respondent
bears a verification on the back side of it,
the allegation of there being no verification
of the contents of the affidavit does not
appeal to the reason. It is also well-settled
in law that a mere infirmity in the format of
the affidavit would not render the same
nullified. Further, the fact of no such
objection as to the legality of the affidavit
having been raised by the petitioner before
the courts below would amount to
acquiescence on their part. There is nothing
on record to show that the plea as to flaw in
the affidavit was ever raised by the
petitioner/defendant
before
the
courts
below or even in the present writ petition. It
is well-settled principle of law that the
arguments cannot go beyond the pleadings
of the parties and a party while entering
into a case should know in advance the
basic idea of the case they will have to face
and one should not be allowed to be taken
by surprise. The object and purpose of
pleading are to enable the adversary party
to know the case it has to meet.

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kashi Nath (Dead) through
L.Rs. versus Jaganath reported in (2003)
8 SCC 740, has been pleased to hold that
where the evidence is not in line with the
pleadings and is at variance with it, the
evidence cannot be looked into or be
depended upon. At the point where the
facts necessary to make out a particular
claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not
found in the plaint, the court cannot
concentrate its own attention or the
attention of the parties thereon. Along these
lines, it is said that no amount of evidence,
on a plea that is not suggested in the
pleadings, can be looked into to grant any
relief.

29. The facts of A.K.K. Nambiar
(Supra) and M/s Sindhi Film Exchange
(Supra) as relied upon by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner are quite
different from that of the present case and
were decided on a different premise, as
such the same are not attracted in the
present factual matrix.

30. Moreover, as the petitioners are
not shown to be deprived of any
opportunity to rebut the averments made in
the said affidavit, as such in substance, no
prejudice has been caused to them. In view
of what has been discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, it is not open for the petitioners
to raise the issue in respect of any flaw in
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the affidavit for the first time at the stage of
final hearing of the writ petition.

31. Another ground taken by the
petitioners in the Writ Petition is that the
Board of Revenue committed a manifest
error of law in deciding/dismissing the
Second
Appeal
without
framing
a
substantial question of law.

32. This Court in a recent judgment
passed in the case of Awadhesh Singh
versus State of UP and others, reported in
2023 (12) ADJ 554 has dealt with the issue
of non-framing of substantial question of
law by the second appellate court and has
held that the reversal of the final order and
decree passed in appeal by the court below
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
208 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is
impermissible
without
formulating
substantial question of law and a decision
on such question, however, in the event of
concurrence with the court below the
formulation of substantial question of law
is not a sine qua non and the same will not
render the judgment of the second appellate
court vitiated.

33. Shri S.N.Srivastava, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents raised
objection regarding the entertainability of
the present writ petition by contending that
the petitioner has basically disputed the
findings of fact which have been affirmed
by the first and the second appellate courts
and as such the concurrent findings of fact
cannot be interfered by this Court in
exercise of its Writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
support of his contention, the learned
Standing Counsel has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of
Jharkhand and others versus Linde
India Limited and another, reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1660; Chandrika
(Dead) by LRS. versus Sudama (Dead)
Thr. LRS. and others, reported in (2019) 5
SCC 790 and Bansraj versus Ram
Naresh and another, reported in (2020) 5
ADJ 10.

34. The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel further submitted that
there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
impugned orders passed by the learned trial
court as well as the learned appellate
courts. Further, the courts below, at all
stages afforded full opportunity of hearing
to the parties and decided the matter by
passing detailed and reasoned orders, after
taking into consideration all the grounds
pleaded by the parties.

35. Having heard the rival contentions
raised by the learned counsels for the
parties and having perused the material
available
on
record;
the
issue
for
consideration, at the first instance, before
this Court is as to whether in the present
case, the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the three Revenue Courts
below warrants any interference by this
Court in exercise of its powers, qua, Writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

36. Before entering into the merits of
the case, it would be apt to consider the
legal context of "concurrent findings of
fact" and reiterate the law in relation to the
extent of interference by the Writ Courts in
concurrent findings of the fact under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan versus Shiv
Dayal reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, page
3 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
807
639 has succinctly described the expression
"concurrent findings of fact" in the
following manner:

"15. It is a trite law that in order
to record any finding on the facts, the trial
court is required to appreciate the entire
evidence (oral and documentary) in the
light of the pleadings of the parties.
Similarly, it is also a trite law that the
appellate court also has the jurisdiction to
appreciate the evidence de novo while
hearing the first appeal and either affirm
the finding of the trial court or reverse it. If
the appellate court affirms the finding, it is
called "concurrent finding of fact" whereas
if the finding is reversed, it is called
"reversing finding.""

38. Further, it is also a settled legal
proposition that the first appellate court is
the final court of fact, as has been dealt
with in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Gurvachan Kaur
and others versus Salikram (Dead)
through LRS, reported in (2010) 15 SCC
530
and
Santosh
Hazari
versus
Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRS.
reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179.

39.

Consequently,
it
can
be
affirmatively alluded that the concurrent
findings of fact are to be considered as
settled facts of the case and the High Court
should ordinarily restrain itself from
interfering with the concurrent findings of
fact. The said restrain is on a much higher
footing in cases where the High Court is
not the appellate court, rather, it is
exercising its Writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Abdul Razak (D) through
LRS.
and
others
versus
Mangesh
Rajaram Wagle and others, reported in
(2010) 2 SCC 432 as reiterated in the case
of State of Jharkhand and others versus
Linde India Limited and another (Supra)
has held that the High Court in exercise of
its Writ jurisdiction is not an appellate court
against
the
findings
recorded
on
appreciation of facts and the evidence on
record. Further, in the case Chandrika
(Dead) by LRS. versus Sudama (Dead)
Thr. LRS. and others (Supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court has been pleased to observe
that the concurrent findings of fact are not
only binding on the High Court but is also
binding upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
For ready reference, extract of Paragraph
No. 12 of the aforesaid judgment in
extracted hereinbelow,

"12. In our considered opinion,
the finding impugned in this appeal being
concurrent finding of fact and was rightly
held by the High Court as binding on the
High Court in its writ jurisdiction, it is also
binding on this Court, calling for no
interference therein..."

40. It may also be elucidated that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union
Bank of India versus Chandrakant
Gordhandas Shah reported in (1994) 6
SCC 271 at page 274 has briefly explained
the reason for non-interference with the
concurrent findings of fact by observing
that it is the trial court and the appellate
court which is entrusted with the duty of
recording the findings on questions of fact
and it is not proper for the Writ courts to
interfere with or disturb those findings. For
a ready reference, extract of paragraph no.
11of
the
said
judgment
is
quoted
hereinbelow,

"11. It is trite that if the trial
court and the appellate court, who are
entrusted with the duty of investigating into
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
questions of fact record concurrent findings
thereon on a proper discussion and
appreciation of the materials placed before
them, the High Court should not interfere
with or disturb those findings while sitting
in judgment over the same in its writ
jurisdiction..."

41.