RAJRANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29-12-93 passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Rajrani has filed a case under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act regarding plot No. 215 area .21 acres with the allegation that Deputy Director of ConsolidalionMecrut vide his orderdated 19-2-74 has exchanged the plot No. 100 Min area 0.24 acre village Damorate the plot 0.215 area 2.1 acre. New plot No. 218 has been made from old plot No. 21 5 and old Plot No. 100 has been made new No. 108/642 due to the error of the Revenue Officer his name has been struck down from old plot No. 100 but his name has not been recorded on new plot No. 218 and since 1974 he is in possession of plot No. 218. Due lo error of Tehsil employee plot No. 218 has been recorded in the name of defcndani No. 3 Balbeer Singh bul defendant No. 3 is in possession of plol No. 220. After hearing both the parties the learned A.S.D.O. Kashipur vide his order dated 22-3-93 has dismissed the suit filed by Smt. Rajrani. Being ag­grieved by this order Smt. Rajrani has preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner Nainital. The learned Commissioner Nainital vide his order dated 29-12-93 has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court and Commissioner Smt. Rajrani has filed second appeal before this Court.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that DDC vide his order dated 19-2-74 in revision No. 25/17/1289 has changed plot No. 100 to the plot No. 215. The adjustment chart was also made in accordance with the orders passed by the DDC on 19-2-74 but this order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was not complied and appellant's name was not entered in the revenue papers. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that on 9-1-76 disputed and was allotted to the defendant No. 3. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that order of Deputy Director or Consolida­tion has not been reversed by any higher Courts therefore, Amaldaramad of that order is requ ired in the revenue papers.