Skip to content


Shaikh Abdur Raoof Vs. Bachchoo and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All532; 73Ind.Cas.495a
AppellantShaikh Abdur Raoof
RespondentBachchoo and anr.
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 194 - joint patti--lambardar's powers. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......to give permission to a tenant to erect a kucha house on land belonging to the joint patti. the court below has held that he can do so and has pointed out that there are no less than 30 co-sharers in the patti and that unless such authority is recognised in the lambardar it would be practically impossible for a valid permission ever to be given at all. the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the enumeration of the duties of a lambardar contained in the board's circular no. 8-iii, reproduced at page 141 of mr. agarwala's commentary on the land revenue act. an enumeration of the duties of the lambardar cannot, however, be considered decisive on a question of the powers which the lambardar can exercise as the implied agent-of the co-sharers under section 194 of.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether it is within the competence of a Lambardar to give permission to a tenant to erect a kucha house on land belonging to the joint patti. The Court below has held that he can do so and has pointed out that there are no less than 30 co-sharers in the patti and that unless such authority is recognised in the lambardar it would be practically impossible for a valid permission ever to be given at all. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the enumeration of the duties of a Lambardar contained in the Board's Circular No. 8-III, reproduced at page 141 of Mr. Agarwala's Commentary on the Land Revenue Act. An enumeration of the duties of the lambardar cannot, however, be considered decisive on a question of the powers which the Lambardar can exercise as the implied agent-of the co-sharers under Section 194 of the Tenancy Act. There is admittedly no direct authority on the question at issue but the decision of the Court below appears to me to be sound common sense and I decline to interfere with it. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //