- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a second appeal under Section 331 of UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the judg ment and decree dated August 29, 1997 passed by the learned Addl. Commis sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated September 26, 1996 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of UPZAnd LRAct.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff Dilshad Hussain in stituted a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act impleading the U. P. Stale and others as defendants with the prayer that the plaintiff be declared as Bhumidhar with transferable rights in pos session over the disputed land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed the aforesaid suit on September 26, 1996. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his order dated August 29, 1997 dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. For the appellant it was contended Appeal dismissed that orders of both the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous and as such are liable to be set aside, that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has illegally dis missed the case of the appellant that the leaned Lower Appellate Court has wrong ly exercised its jurisdiction vested in it under. law. Assuch the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. In reply the learned DGC (R) ap pearing for the U. P. State submitted that the concurrent finding of the facts recorded by the learned Courts below can not be up- set without any reasonable and valid ground that the suit is also barred under Section 49 of UPCH Act, that the disputed land is Waqf property (Public property ). As such the orders passed by the learned Courts below be maintained. I have closely and carefully ex amined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the records it is abundantly clear that disputed holding is Waqf property which cannot be declared as Bhumindhar with transferable rights in favour of the plaintiff appellant who is Mutvalli of the same. The learned trial Court has properly analysed discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical find ing to the effect that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff-appellant as the disputed land is of public utility and which has been declared as waqf property. The learned Additional Commissioner has also examined the points at issue and has correctly upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dis missed the appeal.
(3.) IN view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that this second appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be sustained. In consequence this second appeal is accordingly dismissed and the aforesaid impugned order dated August 29, 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner is hereby confirmed maintained. Let records be returned forthwith to the Court concerned. Stay order if any is hereby va cated. Appeal dismissed. .;