JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This writ petition was dismissed by me on 12.8.2004 against which S.L.P. No. 24116 of 2004 was filed before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on 3.12.2004 dismissed the said S.L.P. as withdrawn by following order:
"After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the special leave petition stating that no written consent was taken by the contesting respondent as required under Section 196 of the Agra Tenancy Act. Though this point was urged but it has not been considered and the petitioner wants to move the High Court in review on mis point. Under the circumstances, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn."
2. Thereafter this review petition has been filed alongwitn delay condonation application.
3. Delay in filing review petition is condoned.
4. Learned counsel for contesting respondent has argued that review petition is not maintainable as it is not covered by any of the contingencies provided under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
5. Calcutta High Court in Smt. B. Dass v. C.M.C. reported in A.I.R. 2005 N.O.C. 223 (Calcutta) has held that rigid principles of review contained in the aforesaid provisions of C.P.C. do not apply to review in writ petitions.
6. Question of absence of written permission for planting grove was thoroughly examined by Chief Revenue Officer in the judgment dated 26.7.2004 which was challenged in the writ petition. Ground-D taken in the writ petition also dealt with the said aspect of the matter.
7. In view of the above, objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent against maintainability of review petition is over ruled.
8. Section 196 and 198 of Agra Tenancy Act 1926 are quoted below:-
196. Definition.- A grove-holder is a person to whom land has been let, or granted by a landlord or permanent tenure-holder for the purpose of planting a grade, or who has in accordance with local custom entitling him to do so or with the written permission of the landlord or the permanent it tenure-holder, planted a grove on land held by him as tenant (not being a permanent tenure-holder, a fixed-rate tenant or a subtenant) or as rent-free grantee, not being a grantee to whom the provisions of Section 185 or Section 186 apply of such landlord or permanent tenure-holder, as the case may be: Provided that where the permission was granted prior to the commencement of this Act, the permission need not have been in writing and may have been either express or implied.
198. Presumption-regarding grove land.- Whenever it is found in any suit or other proceeding relating to grove-land that such land is held by a person who has no proprietary right therein, the court may presume that he holds such land as a grove-holder.
9. Section 196 makes it quite clear that the written permission of the landlord is necessary only when a person plants a grove on the land held by him as tenant. By virtue of Section 196 a person becomes grove holder in the following two contingencies.
10. In the instant case there is no allegation of the petitioner that his father i.e. the landlord gave the land to respondent No. 2 for his predecessor in interest) as tenant. In the absence of such an allegation question of permission, written or otherwise, is not much relevant.
11. No such point regarding absence of written permission was argued when the matter was earlier decided by this Court in writ petition No. 13172 of 1975 decided on 13.7.1983. Through the aid judgment matter was remanded and order dated 26.7.2001 challenge in this writ petition was passed in pursuance of the said remand order.
12. Even if it is held that written permission was necessary, the same may be presumed under Section 198 of Agra Tenancy Act 1926. It has been found that respondent No. 2 was holding the lane in dispute which contained the grove and he had no proprietary right therein hence by virtue of Section 193 it may safely be presumed that respondent no 2 held the land in dispute as grove holder.
13. Accordingly, there is no merit in the review petition hence it is dismissed. However, for a period of two months trees standing on the land in dispute shall not be cut.