DHYAN Vs. BHUPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section, 331 of the UPZA & LR Act preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6-12-1991, passed by the learned Additional Commis sioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of the judgment and decree dated 26-3-1990, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Dhyan instituted a suit under Section 229- B/209 of the UPZA & LR Act with the prayer that he be declared Bhumidhar in possession with transferable rights over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint and the name of the father of the defendants 3 to 6 entered in class 9 which is quite fake and forged, be deleted from the revenue records. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 26-3-1990 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com missioner has dismissed the appeal too on 6-12-1991. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) HAVING closely scrutinized the mat ter in question, I find that the respondents have miserably failed to substantiate their possession over the disputed holding in consonance with the provisions of the Land Records Mandal. In the present case, there is no entry in remarks column in red ink below the entry of possession about the serial number of the list of changes and as such it cannot be presumed that PA-10 must have been issued and served upon the recorded tenure-holder. In fact, the provisions contained in para A-80, A-81, A-82 and A- 102-C have not been complied with whereas the provisions concerned are mandatory. It is also evidently clear that adverse possession in favour of the respon dents is not adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent. Uninterrupted pos session for 12 years of the respondent is not proved. The learned trial Court has erroneously and illegally dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. The learned lower appellate Court has also not ex amined the facts and circumstances of the instant case and has upheld the aforesaid unsustainable, ill-founded and unwar ranted in law judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. A close ex amination of the records clearly reveals that there has been a clear denial of natural justice to the appellant. In the instant case, without any positive and cogent evidence, the learned Courts below have maintained the entry of class 9 in favour of the respon dent using a great miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff-appellant by the aforesaid im pugned orders passed by the learned Courts below.