K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by a defendant-trespasser and it arises out of a suit under section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
(2.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff claimed sirdari right in the disputed land and had alleged that the defendants were trespassers hence the suit for ejectment of the defendants and realisation of damages from them. The defendant-petitioner had denied the claim of the plaintiff and had claimed sirdari right in themselves and various other pleas were raised to negative the claim of the plaintiff in the land in dispute, as is evident from the issues framed in the case and mentioned in the judgment of the Trial Court. All the revenue courts have decreed the plaintiff's suit this time. Previously the case had been remanded twice by the appellate court, but ultimately the first appellate court agreed with the findings recorded by the Trial court and confirmed the judgment. Thereafter in second appeal also the defendant has failed. Now the defendant-trespasser has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the provisions of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, yet the revenue courts have patently erred in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. According to the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner the cause of action for the suit arose during the consolidation operations in the village, therefore, the plaintiff had right to claim the disputed land under section 12 of the UP CH Act. Since the plaintiff has failed to claim the appropriate relief under section 12 of the UP CH Act, the plaintiff's suit was barred by the provisions of section 49 of the UP CH Act.
(3.) SECOND contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before me is that the revenue courts have awarded damages without any basis in evidence and they have granted decree for a larger period than permissible under law, therefore, the decree for damages passed by the revenue courts suffer from patent errors of law and deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any patent error of law rather they have done substantial justice between the parties and they need not be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.;