CHANDRA SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(2.) Facts in brief are that one Mr. Heera Singh filed a suit for ejectment under Sec. 209 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "The Act, 1950") against the present petitioner in the court of respondent no.5 i.e. Assistant Collector, Haldwani, District Nainital, on the basis of sale deeds dtd. 28/8/1971, 5/6/1974, 21/1/1986. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, respondent no.5 decreed the said suit in favour of Mr. Heera Singh and against the present petitioner vide judgment and order dtd. 28/12/1998. During the pendency of trial before the court of Assistant Collector, Heera Singh died and respondent nos.6 to 9 being his LRs were substituted on his behalf. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, filed Z.A. Appeal No.69/51 of 1998-99 (78 of 1999-2000) Chandra Singh vs. Durga Singh & others, in the court of Additional Commissioner (Nyay) Kumaon Mandal, Nainital which was also dismissed by order dtd. 28/8/2001. But, a remand order was also passed for considering the plea of adverse possession which was raised for the first time in the said appeal. Both the parties filed second appeal against the order of appellate court with S.A. No.5 of 2001-02 (petitioner's appeal) and S.A. No.6 of 2001-02 (respondents'/defendants' appeal). The petitioner's appeal was dismissed again vide order dtd. 28/8/2002. The petitioner is now before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the initial suit which was filed in the trial court was vague as the original plaintiff did not disclose the basis on which he claimed Bhoomidhari rights over the land, however, he filed alleged sale deeds dtd. 20/8/1971 (sic 28/8/1971), 5/6/1974, 21/1/1986 which although have not been proved but the sale deeds dtd. 20/8/1971 (sic 28/8/1971) & 5/6/1974 are not in dispute, however, sale-deed dtd. 21/1/1986 is disputed. He further submits that the bare perusal of the aforesaid two sale deeds clearly show that the original plaintiff was owner of the land below the line AA, BA, SA, DA but he very cleverly instead of specifying that he is claiming land of Plot Nos.1233 and 1235 both below the line AA, BA, SA, DA deliberately claimed ownership even on the plots above the aforesaid line. He also submits that the sale deed dtd. 21/1/1986 was never proved and is also the basis of the suit, he submits that Shri Heera Singh was alive on the date of evidence, but he did not get himself examined and moreover no transferor, witness, scribe were examined. On the other hand, the present petitioner of the writ petition claimed all the land above the line of AA, BA, SA, DA which they have purchased from Shri Ram Chandra Khanna vide sale deed dtd. 2/12/1998 and also submitted oral evidence to prove the registered sale deed dtd. 2/12/1998. Ram Chandra Khanna had purchased it from Duglus Bruce, Dunkin Bruce, Trevior Bruce, S/o A.L. Bruce, Mrs. K. Bruce, W/o A.L. Bruce vide sale deed dtd. 13/9/1971. He submits that in spite of the cogent evidence, both the learned courts below have committed irregularity in ejecting him.