KRISHNA DEVI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate representing respondent no. 2.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 instituted Case No. 88 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') praying to be declared as Bhumidhar of the suit property. The contention of the respondent no. 2 was that his name was recorded in the revenue and consolidation records i.e. CH Form-2A, CH Form-11 and CH Form-23 and the lease of the suit property to the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha was void. The petitioner filed a written statement contesting the said case inter-alia stating that the suit property was recorded as Banjar in the revenue records and was so recorded during the consolidation operations and consequently vested in the Gaon Sabha and the petitioner was allotted a lease of the suit property and therefore the case of respondent no. 2 was liable to be rejected. During the proceedings before the Trial Court i.e. Additional Deputy District Magistrate, the record keeper was summoned as a witness who denied the authenticity of the documents produced by respondent no. 2 in support of his case. In view of the statement given by the record keeper, the Trial Court i.e. the Additional Deputy District Magistrate dismissed Case No. 88 of 1996 vide his judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 after recording a finding that the documents produced by respondent no. 2 in support of his case appeared to be forged and fraudulent and respondent no. 2 had not been able to prove his claim over the suit property. Against the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 passed by the Trial Court, respondent no. 2 filed Appeal No. 42 of 1996 which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra vide judgment and order dated 7.8.1998. Through the aforesaid judgment and order, the Additional Commissioner set-aside the order of the Trial Court and decreed the suit of respondent no. Against the judgment and order dated 7.8.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 57 of 1997-98. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment and order dated 27.2001 dismissed Second Appeal No. 57 of 1997-98. The judgments of the Appellate Courts are based on the reasoning of the said courts that the suit property could not have been allotted to the petitioner as the same was not the property of the Gaon Sabha and the name of respondent no. 2 was recorded in the revenue and consolidation records during the consolidation proceedings, therefore, respondent no. 2 was entitled to be declared a Bhumidhar of the suit property. The orders dated 7.8.1998 and 27.2001 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Appellate Courts in their judgments dated 7.8.1998 and 27.2.2001 have been recorded relying on the documents produced by the respondent no. 2 and without reversing the findings of the Trial Court that the documents produced by respondent no. 2 to prove his case were forged and fabricated documents and respondent no. 2 had not been able to prove his case.