- (1.) HEARD Sri Subedar Mishra, for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Diwakar Singh, for respondent -3.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 07.09.2012, dismissing the suit of the petitioner under Section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Additional Commissioner dated 19.02.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, filed against the aforesaid order.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a suit (registered as Misc. Suit No. 1 of 2011 -12) under Section 229 -B of the Act, on 11.11.2011 for declaring him as bhumidhar with non -transferable right of plot 169 (area 0.046 hectare) of village Keshwapur, tahsil Sirathu, district Kaushambi. It has been alleged that land in dispute was granted on patta by zamindar to the petitioner, since before date of vesting. The petitioner has planted two mango, two Jamun, two guava, six lemon and eleven babool trees over it. Due to mistake of Lekhpal, name of the petitioner was not recorded over it. The suit was contested by Gaon Sabha, who filed written statement on 18.06.2012 and stated that land in dispute was banjar land of Gaon Sabha and was recorded as such through out. Through the land in dispute, rain water of the village used to flow up to tank in plot 5051. It was never in possession of the petitioner. The village has undergone through consolidation operation but no objection was filed by the petitioner, for recording his name over it. The suit was barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. One Jawahar Lal Singh also filed an application for his impleadment as defendant in the suit on 21.12.2011. Sub -Divisional Officer, directed the petitioner to file basis of his title. However the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove his title except extract of khasra, in which various trees have been mentioned over the land in dispute, without mentioning the name of the petitioner. Sub -Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 07.09.2011 held that the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove his title over the land in dispute. As the petitioner does not belong to Schedule caste and Schedule tribe as such, on the basis of possession, no right can be granted to the petitioner. On these findings, he dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1 of 2012 -13) from the aforesaid order. Additional Commissioner by order dated 19.02.2014, dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;