PAN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. C. Kandpal, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. S. S. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. C. Belwal, the learned counsel for the private respondents.

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act alleging that the names of opposite parties nos.4 to 9 have wrongly been entered in the revenue records and, consequently, their names should be deleted. During the pendency of this suit, the petitioner also filed an amendment application alleging that since the defendants have forcibly entered and taken possession over the land in question, a further relief of eviction of the defendants should also be granted. The petitioner contended in the suit that plot nos.135, 136, 138 and 139 measuring 26.16 bighas was in the name of petitioner's father and, after his death, the name of the petitioner's mother was recorded in the revenue record and, upon the death of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner became a Hissedar of the land in question and that the respondent nos.4 to 9 had no concern with the said property. It was also alleged that an agreement dated 20.10.1975 was entered between the parties in which the respondents agreed to handover the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioner and that the respondents also agreed to move necessary application before the revenue authority for correction in the revenue records.

(3.) The Assistant Collector, after considering the matter, dismissed the suit holding that the defendants were in possession over the land in dispute prior to 1366 Fasli and that the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession. The trial court also found that the agreement relied upon by the petitioner was a forged document. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said decision, filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by an order dated 29.03.1993. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed by an order dated 27th July, 1994. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present writ petition.