RADHEY Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners filed a suit under Sec. 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in 1983 in the Court of the S.D.M., Sadabad, district Mathura for a declaration that they have perfected their title to the land in dispute by adverse possession. The suit was decreed by order dated 2-6-1984. The respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Agra, which was allowed on 9-1-1985. The petitioners, thereafter filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed on 16-1-1986 and a review application filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 8-1-1988. Petitioners have now filed this writ petition before this Court against the orders, passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

(2.) The sole point argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the report of the Naib Tahsildar is admissible in evidence under Sections 35 and 74 of the Evidence Act and the learned Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were not justified in declaring the report as inadmissible.

(3.) The Additional Commissioner, while allowing the first appeal filed by the respondents against the order and judgment of the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title by adverse possession. One of the evidence filed by the petitioner was a report dated 31-7-1976, submitted by the Naib Tahsildar before the Tahsildar, Mathura in a case relating to correction of papers. The Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue held that this report of the Naib Tahsildar could not be read in evidence, as it has not been proved and the Naib Tahsildar, who has submitted this report has not been examined.