- (1.) HIMANSHU Kumar On the plaint filed by Jalaluddin the ASDO, Chhata, by his order dated 31-1-1997 decreed the suit under Section 229-B, Z. A. Act and ordered that the name of Jalaluddin be deleted from the class 3 and entered under the class-2 bhumidhar with non-transferable rights over the land in question. In appeal against his order in the Court of learned Additional Commissioner (Admin.) by the Gaon Sabha and others, the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 13-2-2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court dated 31-1-1997. Against this order the second appeal has been filed before the Board of Revenue on the grounds that the first appeal was bad for non-joinder of parties, that the appellant was in possession on the basis of lease deed since 1972 and since he was not dispossessed his rights have matured to those of sirdari, that Nagar Chetra Panchayat was not made a party in appeal and hence became bad for non-joinder, amongst others.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant was heard on 18-5-2006. Despite repeated calls none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. I have perused the records. The only substantial question of law inherent in the present second appeal is whether Sirdari rights could mature over an Asami Patta or not? It is not in dispute and has been verily so concluded by the trial Court that Jalaluddin has been entered in the land record on the land in question under class 3 Asami, while analysing issue No. 1 the learned ASDO has reached a remarkable conclusion, that is, that the plaintiff has been in possession of the land in dispute, that the plaintiff is, Ex-defence personnel and hence on the basis of possession of many years is fit to be Bhumidhar with non-transferable righs. The learned ASDO has also reached the finding that the land in dispute is not a land covered under Section 132 of Z. A. Act. This point is not at issue. What is at issue is whether an Asami lease holder can under any provision of law have his rights matured to those of Sirdari. This point has been correctly analysed by the learned Additional Commissioner. It is clear from the ruling cited by the learned Additional Commissioner that Sirdari rights cannot mature on an Asami Patta. I agree with the view of the learned Additional Commissioner, on this substantial question of law. The rulings submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant pertain to issue of whether the land is covered under Section 132 of Z. A. Act or not, hence, are not relevant to the present case.
(3.) IN view of above analysis on the substantial question of law the other point in the grounds of appeal do not need adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the instant second appeal having no force is hereby dismissed and the order dated 13-2-2003 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is hereby upheld and sustained. Let the records be returned within a week and this Courts file be consigned to the record room. Second appeal dismissed. .;