MOHD. SAYEED Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and order da ted 18-5-1998 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in revision petition No. 176 of 1997-98, aris­ing out of the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1996 passed by the learned ASDO, Sadar, Rampur in a suit under Section 229-B of theAct.

(2.) IN brief, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that Moham­mad Sayeed and others, plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants Arjun Singh and others, before the learned trial Court for declara­tion of their rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights over the land in suit. Notices to the defendants were issued.Defendants 1 and 3 did not appear to con­test the suit despite due notice. Defendant No. 2, however, contested the case by filing its written statement, inter alia on the ground that the suit which is collusive and based on bring facts as well as against law, is barred by notice under Section 80 CPC and as such the same is liable to be dis­missed. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial decreed the suit on 13-9-1996 and ordered for recording the names of the plaintiffs in class 2 of the khatauni. Aggrieved by this order and decree, a revision was preferred by the State of U.P. The learned Additional Com­missioner allowed the same and set aside the order and decree passed by the learned trial Court by means of her order dated 19-5-1998 vested the land in dispute in the State of U.P. and directed the learned trial Court to take steps for vesting the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha by means of her orderdated 18- 5-1998. Hence, this second revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that in the khatauni 1391-96F the land in dispute originally is recorded in the name of the State of U.P. and the name of the defendant No. 1, Arjun Singh finds place from khatauni 1380F in class-2. Inspite of this fact, that defendant Arjun Singh did not contest the suit. The learned Additional Commissioner has come to the conclusion that either the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with him or the defendant Arjun Singh was not in posses­sion of the land in dispute and doing cul­tivation on it. In either case the learned trial Court ought to have initiated necessary action under Section 186of the Act for vesting it in the Gaon Sabha. The learned lower revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision petition filed by the state of U.P. and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. No manifest error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been committed by it in rendering the aforesaid impugned order. I see no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned first revisional Court, which have been arrived at after due and proper appraisal of evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has utterly failed to substantiate his claim. No force is found in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The case laws cited by him are of no help to the revisionist.