ALI KHAN Vs. RAM PRASAD
LAWS(ALL)-1980-10-7
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 24,1980

ALI KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
RAM PRASAD Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BHUNESH DUTT VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAT PRASAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT SHRI CHATURBHUJ SHARMA SIKSHAN SANSTHAN MAHAVIDYALAY SAMITI ORAI JALAUN VS. AWADH BIHARI TIWARI ALIAS RAM BABU [LAWS(ALL)-2006-6-41] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R. B. Misra, J. - (1.):-
(2.)A learned Single Judge while admitting the aforesaid appeal under Or. 41 Rule 11, CPC referred it to a larger Bench, as he was doubtful about the correctness of the decision in Smt. Rekha Singh v. The State of U. P., AIR 1973 All. 539 cited before him. This is how the present appeal has come before us.
Ali Khan, the appellant, was, admittedly, the sirdar of plot no. 320 area 2.52 acres. This plot was given to him in lieu of his old plot with the same area during consolidation proceedings. Ram Prasad respondent no. 1 was also a tenure holder of plot no. 321 measuring 0.65 acre, adjacent to plot no. 320 lying towards south. Plot no. 316 constitutes a chak road and belongs to the Gaon Sabha. In the consolidation map prepared by the authorities, the area of plot no. 320 was shown as 2.18 acres instead of 2.52 acres while the area of plot no. 321, belonging to respondent no. 1 was shown as .92 acre in place of .65 acre. Likewise, the area of plot no. 316 of the Gaon Sabha, lying towards the west of plot no. 321, was shown in excess by 0.8 acre than what it actually was. As a result of the incorrect map prepared by the consolidation authorities, the area of the appellant's plot no. 320 was reduced by 0.34 acre while the area of plot no. 321 belonging to respondent no. 1, was in excess by 0.26 acre and the area of plot no. 316 belonging to the Gaon Sabha, was also shown in the map in excess by 9.08 acre. Although the appellant has been in actual possession of the total area of 2.52 acres of plot no. 320 but on account of the incorrect map prepared by the consolidation authorities, a cloud was cast on the title of the appellant and respondent no. 1 forcibly cut away the crops sown by the appellant.

The appellant moved an application for correction of the map before the revenue court, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to make corrections in the map prepared by the consolidation authorities. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the revenue court also met the same fate. In the circumstances, the appellant has been obliged to file the suit for injunction restraining the respondent no. 1 from cutting away the crops sown by the appellant and for the correction of the map prepared by the consolidation authorities.

(3.)THE claim was resisted by respondent no. 1 mainly on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the area of plot no. 320 is in accordance with the map and that he is the bhumidhar of plot no. 321 and the area whereof is also according to the map prepared by the consolidation authorities.
The learned Munsif decreed the suit by his order dated 20th March, 1978 holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. On appeal by respondent No. 1, the learned District Judge, Rampur, by his order dated 22nd July, 1978 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the appellant holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff has now come in second appeal to this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge dated 22nd July, 1978.

;


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