- (1.) C. L. Verma, Member This second appeal been tiled by Bhura against the judgment and decree dated 16-11-91 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 71/93 arising out of the order date 26-10-90 passed by the trial Court in suit No. 52/111 under Section 209/229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the trail Court.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Gaon Sabha instituted the suit seeking eviction of Bhura. It was pleaded that the property belongs to Gaon Sabha and that Bhura was in unlawful possession. It was also pleaded that Bhura had filed a suit No. 44/1987 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for declaration of his rights which was dismissed. Bhura contested the suit claiming to be in possession of the Indian question. He submitted that he was a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste and was in possession over the land in suit from before 30-6-85 and was entitled to get the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The trial Court did not believe the claim of the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner upheld the order and dismissed the same. Bhura has now come up in second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the record it is obvious that the land in question is recorded as Gaon Sabha property. Gaon Sabha claimed that Bhura was in unlawful possession and was liable to eviction. Bhura claimed rights under Section 122-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. It may be mentioned at the very outset that the land in question has an area of 4. 67 acres. No rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act can be given on this much area of the land. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession from 1970. He, however, failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his version. The suit No. 44 of 1987 said to have been brought by him under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was dismissed on 12- 10-1988. The plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to show that this order was subsequently challenged or set aside in appeal or revision. The leaned Additional Commissioner considered the entire material on record and came to the conclusion that Bhura had not been able to prove his possession. The two Courts below have passed a correct order after appreciating the evidence on record which does not warrant any interference in this second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal.
(3.) IN view of the above, second appeal has no force and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed .;