S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 15-11-93 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of a judgment and order dated 15-7-93 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Munne Khan and Kaley instituted a suit under Section 229-3 of UPZA and LR Act for declaration over the disputed land as detailed in para 9-C of t he plaint imp leading U.P. State and others as defendants. The learned trial Court after completing requisite trial has dis­missed the aforesaid suit on 15-7-93. Ag­grieved by this order an appeal was preferred, the learned Addl. Commis­sioner has allowed the appeal. This second appeal has been preferred by the U.P. Slate against the aforesaid order dated Novem­ber 15, 1993. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. The learned DGC (R) appearing for the U.P. State contended that the disputed land is of Government Stale land (None ZA Land). The learned lower appellate Court without assigning any reason, has reversed the finding of the learned trial Court and illegally allowed the appeal that the aforesaid impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Com­missioner is wholly unwarranted in the facts of the present case as he has not reversed the findings given by the learned trial Court, that the contesting respon­dents have miserably failed to prove their possession for last 50 years that without any documentary evidence, the learned Addl. Commissioner has wrongly allowed the appeal of the contesting respondent, that the learned lower appellate Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the facts and material on record and based the judgment and decree on surmises and conjec­tures as such the aforesaid impugned judg­ment arid decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court be set aside and that of the learned trial Court be restored. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent urged that the learned trial Court illegally dismissed the aforesaid suit and the learned lower appellate Court has rightly allowed the aforesaid appeal, that the possession of the contesting respon­dent is well proved. In support of his con­tentions he has cited case law reported in 1960, Supreme Court 100; 1976 Supreme Court 1485; 1990 AWC 287 and 1994 AWC 107.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the records it is abundantly clear that the learned trial Court has properly exhaustively analyzed discussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded clear and allegorical finding to the effect that the disputed land is a Government State land and the rights of the bhumidhar in posses­sion with transferable rights cannot be conferred upon any person over the suit land. 1 entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court has utterly failed to examine the points at issue in the instant case and has not reversed the find­ing recorded by the learned trial Court. A bare perusal of the records clearly reveals that the contesting respondent have miserably failed to adduce any cogent and convincing documentary evidence to es­tablish their possession and title over the disputed land. It is a matter of great con­cerned that the learned lower appellate Court only on the basis of the oral evidence has illegally allowed the appeal. No force is found in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent and the aforesaid case laws referred to by him are of no help to the respondent.;