S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 30-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27-6-1998 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Kailu and others instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants, U.P. State and the Gaon Sabha concerned with the prayer that the plaintiffs be declared Bhumidhar with transferable rights over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed the aforesaid suit on 27-6-1998. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has also dismissed the appeal on 30-1-1999. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff appellant has been ignored by the learned Courts below and a per­verse and erroneous finding has been recorded by them without considering the evidence on record adduced by the parties concerned; that the learned Courts below have not properly considered the material evidence on record and as such the illegal orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed upon the case laws reported in 1978 RD 273 (HC), 1982 RD (SOC) 3 (HC), 1979 RD 148 (HC), 1988 RD 103. In reply, the learned DGC (R) appearing for the U.P. State urged that the concurrent finding of fact, recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be upset without any valid ground ; that the plain­tiff-appellants have utterly failed to estab­lish their title to the land in suit and as such the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below be maintained.
(3.) 1 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 relevant records it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the evidence on record as well as the facts and circumstan­ces of the instant case in correct perspec­tive of law and has rightly dismissed the aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiffs. The learned lower appellate Court has also properly examined the points at issue and has recorded a clear and categorical find­ing to the effect that the plaintiff-appel­lants have no title and possession over the land in suit and has correctly dismissed the appeal.;