SHIV MURAT Vs. MATABHIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision was filed by Shiv Murat against Matabhikh, Gaon Sabha and U. P. Government in the Court of Commissioner, Allahabad which was referred to this Court by Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad vide his Order dated 17.4.89 with the recommendation that the order passed by S.D.O. Phulpur be quashed as he had no jurisdiction to decide the case under Sec. 123 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The present suit under Sec. 123 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was filed by Matabhikh plaintiff O. P. No. 1 before S. D. O., Phulpur on 21.12.87 regarding one and half biswa land of plot No. 773-M on the ground that house of the plaintiff is situated over it since before the date of vesting and in every case he being the agriculture Labourer of schedule caste being pasi, having built the house before the prescribed date, became the owner of the land in suit under Sec. 123 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The present revisionist contested the case on various grounds including that he being in possession on it on the prescribed date became its bhumidhar under Sec. 123-B of U. P. Z. A.and L. R. Act and that he had already filed a suit under Sec. 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act regarding the entire 13 bishwa area of this plot No. 773. After taking evidence the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 20.7.88 regarding one Biswa land against which order the present revision was filed.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the revisionist supported the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner and stated that neither under Sec. 9 nor under Sec. 123 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. S. D. O. could have entertained such suit or application for declaring disputed land as Abadi of the plaintiff Matabhikh. According to his jurisdiction of such declaration was of Civil Court. According to him in Schedule II of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act neither Sec. 9 nor Sec. 123 are mentioned. As such declaration of Abadi could have been given by the Civil Court only. The learned counsel for the O. P. supported the judgment of the Trial Court and stated that S. D. O. had full jurisdiction under Sec. 123 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act as it was his duty to record Abadi in Revenue records. He further argued that the revisionist was not aggrieved party and he had no right to file present revision.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The revisionist has contested the suit in the Lower Court also and claimed the entire land as his own, regarding which he had already filed a separate suit under Sec. 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. As such it cannot be said that he is not the aggrieved party. The revision filed by him is not defective due to it.