PARTUMAL/GHANSHYAM Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareily in two revisions no. 41/165 and 152/161 of 1986 Ghanshyam Vs. Gaon Sabha and another and Purtuaml Vs. Gaon Sabha and another respectively with a common Judgement and recommendations dated 29-8-86 and the revision were preferred against the order dated 7-3-86 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Pilibhit in suit no. 34 and 35 of 1985-86 of district pilibhit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, to be called the "Act" hereinafter since the reference has been made with a common Judgement and order of this court also applicable to both the revisions.

(2.) Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that two separate suits under Sec. 229-B of the Act were brought by Ghanshyam Dass and Partumal, the revisionists against the Gaon Sabha Bakhshpore, Pargana, tehsil and district described at the foot of the plaints, of village Bakhshpore referred to above with the allegations that the land in suit is situated in the middle of the old grove lands belonging to the plaintiffs and had been in the cultivatory possession for a petty long time beyond the prescribed limit of 12 years and the defendant Gaon Sabha attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the land but the plaintiff continued their adverse possession uninterrupted and in the hostile manner and that there exist, a number of mango and guava trees over the land in suit planted by the plaintiff and the land in suit has been under the cultivatory possession of the plaintiff on account of Sec. 210 of the Act against the Gaon Sabha. The suit was contested by the state only while the plaint case was admitted in the written statement filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha After completing the trial the suits were decreed accordingly under the Judgement and decree dated 3-11-1971 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector First Class Pilibhit. A restoration application was moved on behalf of the Gaon Sabha under the signatures of Sri Laxman Prasad Pradhan on 22-5-85 which was vehemently opposed by the plaintiff but ultimately the restoration was allowed setting aside the decree dated 3-11-1971 and the trial of the suit was reopened. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff have filed two separate revisions described above. The present reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner with the recommendations for setting aside the impugned order dated 7-3-86 and for rejecting the restoration application of the defendants opposite parties being heavily time barred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.