GIRDHARI LAL, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal from order is pending since 1991. On the date of hearing the learned Counsel has given an application that the appellant could not be contacted and it has been requested by the learned Counsel for the applicant that appellant should be informed from office.
(2.) I have perused the original file and the records. The learned Counsel for the applicant has taken so many adjournments and learned Counsel deliberately do not want to argue the case. Therefore, after perusal of the file the case is being decided on merits. Brief facts of this case is that Ram Adhar and others has moved an application before the learned trial Court that disputed plot is recorded as Abadi in the revenue records but the applicants have so many trees on the disputed land and possession is continuing since very long. It has also been stated in the plaint that during the consolidation proceedings no statement was provided to him and therefore wrong entries has been continuing. The disputed property is recorded in Class 6 (2) as Abadi. Pradhan has filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court vide his order dated 11-8-1987 has held that the disputed land be recorded as non-transferable bhumidhar in the name of the plaintiffs in place of Abadi. The learned trial Court has also held in his order that case of the applicant is not proved but only on the basis of the written statement filed by the Pradhan application has been allowed. No documentary evidence was available on the record to show the prima facie case of the applicant but the learned trial Court has only allowed the case on the basis of the written statement of Pradhan. There is no record to show that Pradhan has filed written statement, with the permission of the S.D.O. Pradhan is only custodian of the Gaon Sabha and he has no right to file any compromise on behalf of the Gaon Sabha without permission of the competent authority. But in the present case Pradhan has filed the written statement admitting the claim of the applicant. The documentary evidence filed by the applicant shows that the disputed property was recorded as Abadi in the consolidation proceedings. In C.H. Form 20-A and C.H. Form 41, the disputed property is recorded as Abadi but ignoring the fact that the disputed property was recorded as Abadi in the consolidation proceedings and no objection were filed on behalf of the applicant during the consolidation proceedings. The learned trial Court has deliberately damaged the State property and has passed the order against law. This order was reversed by the learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 14-3-1990. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 14-3-1990 this present first appeal from order has been filed.
(3.) AS discussed above the case of the applicant has been wrongly allowed by the trial Court and there was no prima facie case that on the disputed property applicant's right has been perfected but the trial Court has wrongly ignored the established provisions of law and has passed the order which has been rightly set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner. This present first appeal from order is not maintainable because applicants have no prima facie case.;