- (1.) RAM Janam Singh, Member This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 5-11-1993 in a case under Sec-tion229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY, staled the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act before the trial Court on the basis of adverse possession over the land in suit. The allegation was that Gata No. 590 is merged into Gata No. 595 of the plaintiff-appellant. Defendants- respondents denied the claim of the plaintiff-appellant but the learned trial Court on the basis of the order passed under Section 41 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act by the Additional S. D. O. Saharanpur dated 10-10-1984 and the orders of the learned Additional Com missioner Meerut Division, dated 28-5-85 has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appel lants that they have matured their rights under Section 210 of the Act on the basis of adverse possession. Against this order a first appeal was referred before the learned Additional Commissioner Meerul Division. The learned Additional Com missioner has allowed the appeal on the basis that the claim of the plaintiff-respon dents on the basis of adverse possession is not proved because the orders passed under Section 41 of U. P. Land Revenue Act cannot confer any right on the basis of adverse possession to the plaintiff-appel lants. Under Section 41 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, only the demarcation is done and the decision of the right of the parties is not done in that section. Aggrieved by this order, the legal reresentatives of the deceased, Sadhu Singh, plaintiff-appel lants have preferred this second appeal. Heard the learned Counse for the parties and perused the record carefully. I am in agreement with the obser vations of the learned Additional Com missioner that no right could be given 10 the plaintiff-appellants on the basis of the judgment passed by a competent Court under Section 41, U. P. Land Revenue Act. Under Section 41 of U. P. Land Revenue Act only the demarcation is done and boundary disputes are decided but the con firmation of the right on the basis of ad verse possession is always raised on the legal procedure and the facts and the evidence on record. The plaintiff-apellants have failed to prove their adverse possession on the land in question. In the absence of khasra entries and the extracts of khasra and the other relevant documen tary and oral evidence the claim of the plaintiff-appellants is not proved that they have matured their rights under Section 210 of the Act on the basis of adverse possession. Accordingly, on the basis of judgment passed under Section 41 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, the conclusion of the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed for confer ring any right on the basis of adverse pos session' The observations of the learned Addition. I Commissioner is well based on the (act and law and hence this second appeal deserves dismissal.
(3.) ON the basis of the observations made above, the second appeal has not force and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .;