VIRENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE
LAWS(UTN)-2013-4-18
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on April 05,2013

Virendra Kumar Saxena Appellant
VERSUS
BOARD OF REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 11-6- 1994 passed by Assistant Collector Kashipur in revenue suit No. 22/7 of 1981-82, judgment and order dated 23-10-1990, passed by Addl. Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal Nainital in Z.A. appeal No. 106/163 of 1983-84, and the judgment and order dated 16-5-1994, passed by Board of Revenue in second appeal No. 66 of 1990-91, Annexure Nos. 3,4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the plaintiff was a political sufferer and a disabled person. The land in suit were allotted to him in colonization scheme, being a disabled person. He filed suit against Liyakat Hussain for declaration as Bhumidhar and for possession over the land in suit U/S 229- B and 209 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. As per plaint case the plaintiff claims to be the Bhumidhar of plot Nos. 11/2 area 10.40 hectare and 11/4 area 3.50 acre situated in village Hariyawala Tehsil Kashipur District Nainital. In the year 1966-67 the plaintiff was aged about 67 years and due to his ill-health he was unable to cultivate the land and due to this reason he gave the land on Batai to Liyakat Hussain father of respondent Nos. 4 to 9, who used to cultivate the land and half of crop used to give to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 getting the benefit of old age of plaintiff illegally got entered his name in the aforesaid land in revenue record in class-8. U.P. Z.A. and L.R.Act was enforced in the village w.e.f. 1-7-1969 i.e. in 1377 Fasli and from 1386 Fasli the defendant has become the Sirdar and thereafter Bhumidhar. The entries have been made illegally in the name of defendant No.1. It was further alleged that till 1979 the defendant No.1 cultivate the land on Batai and from 1980 he refused to cultivate the land on Batai and the possession of defendant is illegal since 1980 and he is liable to be evicted.
(3.) Suit was contested by filing written statement and in written statement filed by the defendant Liyakt Hussain it was pleaded that the right of Bhumidhari of defendant had matured. The defendant No.1 has been cultivating the land in suit since 16 years and under the U.P. Tenancy Act he acquired the right as occupancy tenant and thereafter on coming in to force the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, he has perfected his right as Sirdar and thereafter Bhumidhari. Proceeding U/S 39 of Land Revenue Act was also drawn against the defendant which was also dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Kashipur on 2.12.1973.;


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