LAWS(UTN)-2014-2-60

MOHD ASLAM Vs. HARENDRA SINGH NEGI

Decided On February 26, 2014
MOHD ASLAM Appellant
V/S
Harendra Singh Negi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the part of order dated 13.3.2009 passed by IV F.T.C./Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No.91 of 2008 as well as quashing of order dated passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Roorkee in O.S. No.21 of 2006.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent no.1 filed a suit being O.S. No.21 of 2006 against the petitioner seeking a decree of injunction. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing written statement and alleged that the disputed land is an agricultural land and the Civil Court is not competent to entertain the suit and that the suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Besides this, it was also alleged that the consolidation proceedings in the Village had come to an end and notification u/s 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, C.H. Act) has been issued, therefore the suit is barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act. On the basis of pleadings of parties, relevant issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) in the matter. Apart from other issues, issue no.3 was framed to the effect "whether the suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act". Issue no.4 was framed "whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of C.H. Act". Vide order dated 17.10.2008, both these issues i.e. issue nos.3and 4 were decided by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Roorkee against the petitioner/defendant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant filed a revision in the court of District Judge Hardwar. Vide order dated 13.3.2009, the revisional court remanded the matter to the trial court on issue no.4. However, the findings given by the trial court on issue no.3 were upheld by the revisional court. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Civil Judge has committed manifest error of law by observing whether the disputed land is situated in plot no.507B or 505B.