RAM PARIKSHAN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GIRDHARI Lal, J. This appeal has been filed by Ram Parikshan against the order dated 6-5-1989 passed by Addi tional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in which he has dismissed the appeal filed by Ram Parikshan preferred against the order dated 29-4-1986 passed by ASDO Rasra, Ballia in a case under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that Sri Ram Parikshan has filed a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act against Sri Ashok Kumar etc. regard ing the disputed land alleging that the disputed land was acquired by common ancestor Sri Ram Sunder. A lease was taken in the name of Ram Sunder on 30-12-49 from the original tenure holder Sri Prabhu Tewari and after the death of Ram Sunder, plaintiff and defendants became sirdar and after wards bhumidhar and both plaintiff and defendants are in possession. But now the defendants are claiming sole bhumidhari rights over the disputed land.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff- appellant that once palta was granted in favour of Ram Sunder by the original tenure holder on 30-12-49 after the expiry of the lease in 1362 Fasli, lease-holder Ram Sundar be came sirdar of the disputed land and in the above circumstances 'the second lease which is alleged to have been executed in favour of ancestors of defendants on 28-12-1953 is void because when rights of the original tenure holder was extinguished he has no right to grant a fresh lease in favour of defendant's ancestors and it has also been alleged that the appellants right has been perfected under Section 23 of the UPZA and LR Act. IT has also been alleged that the lease granted in favour of defen dants was void hence Section 49 of the UPCH Act will not apply and the suit is not barred by Section 49 UPCH Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant has cited two rulings 1992 RD Page 77 and 1994 ACJ Page 251. Ihavc considered thcsamc.