NAVAB ALI Vs. DAULAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 26-8-94 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this Case is that the learned trial Court vide his order dated 30-8-93 has decided the preliminary issues Nos. 3 and 4 and it was held by the learned trial Court that suit was not barred by Section 34(5) of Land Revenue Act and also the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. C.H. Act. Being aggrieved by this order revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner and this revision was rejected. Hence this revision has been filed before the Board of Revenue.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Courts below has wrongly held that the suit was not barred by Section 34(5) of U.P. Land Revenue Act because opposite parties have not filed any mutation application before the concerned authorities. Both the Courts below have considered that the suit was not barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act and Section 34(5) of U.P. Land Revenue Act. It has been mentioned in Para 4 of the revision petition that case was registered on 19-9- 92 and plaintiff has filed mutation application before the Tahsildar on 27-8-92 and it has also been stated in the above para that it appears that on 10-9-92 back dated application dated 27-8-92 was presented before Tahsildar to avoid the bar of Section 34(5) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act but the revisionist has failed to prove that the mutation application filed before the Tahsildar on 27-8-92 was back dated. In the above of any proof it cannot be presumed that back dated application was filed by the opposite parties.