KHUDDAR Vs. GOPI CHAND & OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2012-2-398
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 09,2012

Khuddar Appellant
VERSUS
Gopi Chand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage.
(2.) THIS is plaintiff's Second Appeal arising out of Original Suit No. 1051 of 1980 which was dismissed on 7.11.1988 by VIIIth Additional Munsif, Deoria. Against the said decree plaintiff -appellant filed Civil Appeal No.278 of 1988 which was dismissed by IInd Additional District Judge, Deoria on 24.5.1999 hence this Second Appeal. Plaintiff claimed that he and proforma -defendants 4 and 5 were owner of a house shown by letters A B C D in the plaint map and sahen B C E F towards south of their house since before Zamindari abolition and were using the Sahen by erecting a palani (make shift thatched hut) and had planted some trees and the sahen land was settled with them under Section -9 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. Number of the plot was stated to be 497 area 0.15 acre (about 730 sq. yard). Plaintiff also claimed benefit of Section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act according to which if a member of scheduled caste was in possession of gaon sabha land since before 30th June, 1975 (which date was subsequently changed several times) then the land stood settled with him. That plaintiff and proforma defendants were washer men (scheduled caste). It was further pleaded that during consolidation name of the defendants first set was wrongly entered in the revenue record in case no.1347 decided on 22.1.1979 by Consolidation Officer. Reliefs of cancellation of the said order and permanent injunctions were sought in the suit.
(3.) CONTESTING defendants pleaded that towards South of the road there was no house of the plaintiff, that house of contesting defendants was situate towards South of the road and C D E F was in their possession and ownership, that the house of the plaintiff was quite far away from the land in dispute. It was further pleaded that plot no.497 was allotted to the contesting defendants by the Consolidation Officer and it was their chak. Plaintiff who appeared as P.W. -1 categorically stated in his statement that towards South of his house there is a road and he did not tell this fact to his counsel while plaint was drafted.;


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