- (1.) HIMANSHU Kumar A suit filed under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, by Kishan Lal and others was dismissed by the SDO by his order dated 10-7-1987 with the finding that the suit was bared by Section 34 (5) of L. R. Act, under Section 49 of U. P. C. H. Act and Section 80 CPC. An appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 49 of U. P. C. H. Act and the impugned order dated 10-7-1987 passed by the trial Court was upheld. Against his order, the present second appeal has been filed before the Board of Revenue on the grounds that because the father of the appellant was recorded on the disputed land as such, the suit was not barred by Section 34 (5) of L. R. Act, that the notices under Section 80 CPC and under Section 106 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act were given to the State and the Gaon Sabha, the postal receipts and copies of which are attached with the plaint, because there was no dispute before the consolidation operation, hence the bar of Section 49 of U. P. C. H Act does not arise because the proper issue has not been framed in the trial Court, amongst others.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on 4-8- 2006. Despite due information and repeated calls no one appeared for the opposite parties. The only substantial question of law inherent in this second appeal appears to be whether the suit is barred by any provision of law in force or not? The learned S. D. O. has in his impugned order dated 10-7- 1987 recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs have failed to show that they had filed mutation proceeding under Section34 of L. R. Act before filing the suit in question. Similarly the learned Additional Commissioner in his impugned order dated 8-1-1988 recorded a clear finding that the plaint itself shows that the consolidation operation has been held in the village and hence, the case was barred by Section 49 of U. P. C. H. Act. Contrary to the claims made in the memo of second appeal and as rightly observed by the learned SDO, evidence of sufficient notice under Section 80 CPC and Section 106 Panchayat Raj Act have not been filed with the plaint. This operates as clear bar to the suit in question. In the absence of evidence filed by the plaintiffs to show that they had filed proceeding under Section 34 of L. R. Act, there is clear bar to the suit under Section 34 (5) of L. R. Act. In view of the above, I find the basic suit in the trial Court is barred by the above mentioned law and hence, the second appeal having no force is hereby dismissed. Let the records be returned within a week and this Courts file be consigned to the record room. Appeal dismissed. .;