SHAUQAT Vs. ANIS BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act ( here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 30-12-1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 28-2-1994 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants State of U.P. and others, with the prayer that the plaintiffs be declared bhumidhars with transferable rights over the share of the deceased, Anis Beg ; the entry made on 19-9-1991 by means of PA-11 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 be expunged and the names of the plaintiffs be recorded over the land in suit as detailed in para 10 of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial dismissed the aforesaid suit on 28-2-94. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner by means of his order dated 30-12-1994 dismissed the appeal too. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) I have -closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the record, it is amply clear that by means of an order dated 19-1-1991 on the basis of PA-11, the names of the sons of the deceased Anis Beg have been mutated upon the land in suit and the disputed land has been continuously in the ownership of them. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellants preferred any appeal against the aforesaid order. The appellants are the nephews of the deceased and are claiming their title to the land in suit on the basis of adverse posses­sion. The learned trial Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the plaintiff ap­pellants are not bhumidhars with trans­ferable rights over the disputed land and the adverse possession of the plaintiff-ap­pellants is not established. The learned lower appellate Court has also examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law and has drawn a conclusion that there has been a collusion between the plaintiff appellants and the defendant-respondents in respect of the disputed land as the deceased Anis Beg never objected to the adverse possession claimed by his nephews plaintiff-appellants and has rightly dis­missed the appeal upholding the order passed by the learned trial Court.