S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgements of the opposite parties dated 28.8.1981, 4.11.1974 and 9.4.1973 (Annexure Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively).
(2.) For disposal of the writ petition facts in brief will suffice. Suit filed by the respondent No. 4 under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act claiming declaration of his rights was decreed by the Trial Court. Appeal filed by the opposite party was dismissed by the first Appellate Court and then Second Appeal filed was also dismissed by the second Appellate Court. Claim of the plaintiff was that one Chetan who was original tenant died more than 25 years back leaving no heirs and the land was brought by the then zamindar as his khudkasht and he gave permission on 21.7.1960 to the plaintiff to plant the grove. The grove was planted and thus he became grove holder and then bhumidhar. The claim was that the name of the petitioner was wrongly recorded. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant on the ground that Raja Ram is the real brother of Chetan (Jatan) and after him he inherited and came in possession. Raja Ram became sirdar and then bhumidhar on depositing ten times and then he sold 1/2 rights to Moti Lai, petitioner No. 1 and thereafter name of the petitioner was mutated. The claim of the plaintiff was accepted and the contention of the petitioners was rejected by all the three Courts and thus this writ petition.
(3.) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that plaintiff has failed to prove that land was ever Khudkasht of the zamindar and thus they have any right to let it out to the plaintiff and otherwise also the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he has planted the grove. The land in dispute was never recorded as Khudkasht of the zamindar. It is further submitted that plaintiff has never put the case that petitioner is not the brother of Chetan or Jatan. In fact Chetan and the petitioner No. 2 both are of the same case and real brothers and both are the sons of Sarju. Submission is that Patta dated 2.7.1960 is clearly unauthorised and ineffective. Lastly, it is submitted that evidence given by both sides in respect to factual aspect have been misinterpreted and a perverse finding has been recorded which are based on surmises and conjectures. On the aforesaid premises submission is that judgments of all the three Courts need interference.;