HARGEN Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri R.P. Dubey.

(2.) Sri Dubey submits that the issue relating to the bar of section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, could not have been taken into consideration by the Board of Revenue and that even otherwise the petitioner has perfected his title by virtue of his long standing possession since 1939 on the basis of a lease He contends that the bar of section 49 would not operate as the consolidation authorities have no right to adjudicate any controversy relating to land recorded as Banjar and for that he relies on two decisions of this Court in the case of Ramphal and Others v. Champat Singh and Others,1985 RevDec 153and the decision in the case of Bhillar and Others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and Others., 1983 RevDec 299.

(3.) Having heard Sri Dubey learned Counsel for the petitioner what transpires from the facts on record is that the petitioner is claiming his tenancy rights on the basis of an alleged lease of 1939. The claim, therefore, is founded on long standing possession of a lease. This is a claim which squarely falls for adjudication of such rights within the provisions of the UP. C.H. Act, 1953, namely, section 4 read with section 5 and section 9 (A-2) thereof.