LAWS(ALL)-1990-2-30

BHOLA RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

Decided On February 05, 1990
BHOLA RAM Appellant
V/S
BOARD OF REVENUE U. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, decreeing the suit of respondents 3 to 7 under section 229-B of UP ZA and LR Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are that plaintiff-respondents filed a suit under section 229-B of UP ZA and LR Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for a declaration that they are the sirdars of the plot in suit with the allegations that the plaintiff and defendants 8 to 10 were the Zamindars but the name of defendants 8 to 10 alone were recorded over the plots in suit and the Patwari of the village being enmical wrongly recorded the names of defendants 1 to 4 and that the plaintiff and defendants 8 to 10 initially filed a suit for declaration of their bhumidhari right before the Civil Court which was decreed on 1-12-59. THE defendants 1 to 5 feeling aggrieved went up in appeal before the Civil Judge which was, however, dismissed on 19-11-60. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal it appears that consolidation proceedings started in the village under U P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. THE defendants 1 to 5 feeling aggrieved against the decree passed by Civil Judge went up in second appeal before this Court which was, however, allowed on 18-11-66 and the suit was dismissed in pursuance of which the names of defendants 1 to 5 were entered in the revenue papers on the basis of which on 20th July 1968 the defendants 1 to 5 who are the petitioners took possession over the land in suit. THE plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiffs continued in possession over the land in suit and even after the close of the consolidation operation on 23-7-60 the plaintiffs continued to remain in possession and matured sirdari rights by prescription by remaining in possession for more than six years and hence the suit was filed on these allegations.

(3.) HEARD Sri Ramji Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. R. Singh learned counsel for the contesting respondents.