Decided on May 07,2013

State Of U P (Now State Of Uttarakhand) Appellant
Raj Kumar Singh And Others Respondents


- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The plaintiff/respondent nos.1 to 4 instituted Suit No.255 of 1971, on the ground that the plaintiffs were in possession of plots in dispute before the abolition of Zamindari, but by mistake they were recorded as Class-IV. They approached the Revenue Authority for correction of the record stating therein that they are entitled to be declared as Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. The plaintiff/respondents also claimed for declaration of their right as Bhumidhar in respect of 26 plots, enumerated in details given at the foot of the plaint after prayer column. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement on the grounds that the land in dispute was Gaon Sabha's land and the respondents were in unauthorized occupation of Gaon Sabha land from 1375 Fasli and the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Muzaffarnagar, who had the jurisdiction at the relevant time, dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 29.06.1979 with costs. The Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Muzaffarnagar decided the issue of Bhumidhari right of the petitioner in the disputed Khasra numbers. The said officer held that the respondents failed to prove their continuous possession over the disputed land for more than 12 years. The respondent nos.1 to 4 filed Appeal No.258 of 1979 before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 06.01.1982. Against the aforesaid judgments, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed Second Appeal No.176/1981-82. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad, vide judgment and order dated 08.08.1991, allowed the Second Appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.08.1991 passed by the Board of Revenue, present petition has been filed by the State.
(3.) Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State/petitioner argued that the judgment passed by the learned Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad is bad in law, as before deciding the same, no substantial question of law was framed.;

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