RANBIR SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner Ranbir Singh (now deceased), substituted by his widow Smt. Hardei, has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 12.10.1993, and 31.7.1995, Annexures 16 and 17 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 2, Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Kumaun Mandal Nainital in first appeal and respondent No. 1, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, in second appeal, respectively, whereby in first appeal the judgment and decree passed by Additional Collector Ist Class/Additional Sub Divisional Officer, Kashipur in Suit No. 22/19 of 1991 -92 filed U/S 209 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, was set aside and the appeal was allowed whereas in second appeal the judgment of first appellate court was upheld and the appeal of the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the plaintiff/petitioner Ranbir Singh filed a suit U/S 209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act on 12.7.1989, corresponding agriculture year, i.e., 1397 Fasli, in respect of his land described at the foot of the plaint by Khasra (plot) numbers and its boundaries, situated in village Nandpur Nar Ka Topa, Tehsil Bazpur, District Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar), against respondent No. 3/defendant Sri Harbhajan Singh Cheema. In the suit State was also impleaded as defendant no. 2, in view of provision of Sub -section (2) of Section 209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, being a necessary party.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner is Bhumidhar with transferable right of the disputed land. The defendant/respondent Harbhajan Singh Cheema, Managing Director of Cheema Paper Mill trespassed over the land in suit in the end of 1395 Fasli and in spite of several requests of the plaintiff/petitioner he was not vacating the land. Hence the plaintiff/petitioner he was not vacating the land. Hence the plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for eviction and damages for use and occupation. The further case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the land in suit along with other land was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of establishing a Sugar Factory with a clear understanding that only the land actually utilized in the factory shall be retained and the rest land shall be returned back to the petitioner/plaintiff and the possession of the land was also not taken by the acquiring authority. Consequently, the acquiring authority vide notification annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, de -notified eleven acres of land including the land in suit and the same was returned back to the petitioner/plaintiff and his name was duly entered as Bhumidhar with transferable rights again in the revenue records. The land revenue of the land was determined. The copy of khatauni has also been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure No. 12. The petitioner also filed revenue payment receipt Annexure No. 11.