NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD Vs. SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before entering into the real controversy involved in this case, it would be pertinent to mention the backdrop of this petition depicting the earlier adjudications made in the matter at different levels hitherto.

(2.) The respondents no. 1 to 9, adverted in the array of parties, were the plaintiffs, who initiated the revenue case no. 22/29 of the year 2002 -03 on 24.12.2002 under Sec. 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as the 'Act ') seeking to declare their rights on the land in question as bhumidhars with transferable rights. Such case was brought against the State Government as well as the Gram Sabha, Jaspur represented through its Secretary at that time. The defendants resisted such suit, and after rendering the opportunity to parties to adduce their documentary as well as oral testimony and then further hearing the arguments, the learned Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar decreed such case on 30.1.2003 with the result that the land bearing Khasra No. 96, area 0.437 hectare and Khasra No. 102Ga, area 1.214 hectare, total area 1.651 hectare were declared to be bhumidhari with transferable rights in nature in the name of plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 9 herein). He, accordingly, issued the directions to the concerned revenue officials that the names of aforementioned plaintiffs be recorded as bhumidhars with transferable rights instead of Aasami of Class III. This order was challenged by Nagar Palika, Jaspur by way of filing the Appeal No. 54/2002 -03 and such appeal was filed on 12.6.2003 with the delay of 42 days, but to meet out the shortcoming a delay condonation application was moved under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. That apart, the State also filed an appeal on 4.6.2003 challenging the same judgment of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Divisional Commissioner of Kumaon passed the order on 16.6.2003 consolidating both the aforementioned appeals and also restrained all concerned from raising any construction on such land nay executing any sale deed/deeds pertaining to such land.

(3.) It seems that the later on the matter was made over to the Additional Commissioner, who heard all the parties and passed a very short order of only 2 -3 lines on 25.9.2003, thereby condoning the delay in the interest of justice. Appeal thus was admitted for hearing.