BECHAN AND ORS. Vs. GAON SABHA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is made by the learned Additional Commissioner (Ist), Varanasi Division, Varanasi by its order dated 7-10-1993 whereby the learned Additional Commissioner has recommended to allow the revision filed by the revisionists after setting aside the judgment and order dated 23-3-1990 passed by SDO rejecting the application dated 9-3-1986 moved by the revisionists for the settlement of the disputed land as Abadi in favour of the revisionists.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the present case are that the revisionists have moved an application on 9-3-1986 before the SDO alleging therein; that the disputed plot has been recorded as Khalihan in consolidation proceeding,, however, they have constructed their houses over the land in dispute since before the consolidation operation; that the entry of Khalihan in revenue record relating to disputed land was made in consolidation proceeding without making spot inspection the entry of Khalihan be expunged from revenue record and disputed land be recorded as Abadi of the revisionists and be settled with them.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record carefully and also considered the objections filed by the opposite parties. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists are that the revisionist are members of Scheduled Caste and they have constructed their houses over the land in dispute before 30-6-1985. The disputed land is not the land of public utility on the spot nor it has been recorded as such in CH form 21. The report of the Naib Tehsildar too; reveals the fact that the disputed land was purchased through registered sale-deed dated 18-7-1959 and thereafter in the year 1960 the construction of houses were made by the revisionists since then the revisionist are continuing in possession thereof over the land in dispute. The revisionists are agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste being as “CHAMAR” by caste. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the revisionists has also cited the case law reported in 1991 RD Page No. 192 and 1990 RJ Page No. 492.