RAM KUMAR GUPTA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srivastava for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THIS petition arises out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff claiming adverse possession over the land in dispute. The Original suit No. 116 of 1984 was filed seeking declaration by the petitioner as bhumidhar, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. The petitioner thereafter filed two suits under Section 229-B in 1986, registered as Original Suit No. 2 of 1987-88 on the same grounds, and the other suit regarding another plot with the same prayer.

(3.) THE contesting respondents have filed a counter-affidavit and the learned counsels have advanced their submissions. Sri P.K. Mishra contends that the procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue was incorrect and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this issue. Suffice it to say that the restoration was allowed and thereafter the matter was heard again, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board has committed an error in deciding the matter again vide order dated 24.9.1996.