S.R.YADAV, j. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 9-4-96 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act decided by the trial Court vide the order dated 16-2-1987wherebythesuit has been decreed.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant papers on file. The learned Counsel for the appel­lant mainly submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant for hearing, that delay in filing the first appeal was not properly explained and that the lower ap­pellate Court created a new case in favour of the respondents. In support of his submissions he cited the case law reported in 1963 RD 80 and AIR 1963 Alld 204'and AIR 1994 AM 129. In reply the learned Counsel for the otherside mainly contended that the ap­pellant was given compensation in accord­ance with law of 5-0-0 of disputed land, that Narendra Deo Krishi University was in possession over the same since long and that the land in dispute is not identified on the spot.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the relevant facts of the case are that on institution of a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act by the plaintiff/appel­lant in respect of the disputed plot No. 87M situate at village Sheonathpur Pargana Khandasa, Tehsil Bikapur, District Faizabad. Notices were issued to the defendant-respondents. The suit was con­tested by way of filing the writteen state­ment stating therein that the land in dis­pute was acquired for the purposes of Narendradeo Krishi University and the tenure-holder were given compensations in accordance with law by the land acquisi­tion officer. After completing the for­malities in accordance with the provisions laid down for the same and since the ac­quisition and delivery of possession in favour of University was made and it was being used by the University the land was not identifiable on the spot. On the basis of pleadings of the parties as many as 10 issues were framed in the matter; in order to adjudication of the case parties were allowed to adduce evidence in support of their claims and they did so. After the close of evidence the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff-appel­lant stood decreed. Against which a time barred appeal and a revision were preferred before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division which were heard by the learned Additional Commissioner after consolidating the revision and appeal as mentioned above. Aggrieved by this order, the instant second appeal has been preferred before this Court.;