BASHIR AHMAD Vs. TAIYAB HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) I do not find any error in the view taken by the lower appellate court to the effect that the land regarding which the suit has been dismissed, cannot be said to be appurtenant to the plaintiffs house. Firstly, this land is not just adjacent to the plaintiff's house while the triangular piece of land regarding which suit has been decreed is just adjacent to the plaintiff's house towards north. Secondly, under Section 9 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act land may be settled only if it satisfies the following requirements:

(3.) If a person has got a small house over an area of 100 or 200 square yards somewhere in a plot of 10 acres, he cannot claim the entire plot to have settled with him under Section 9 of the Act. From the Commissioner's map dated 12.1.1978 paper No. 45A, it is quite evident that the area of the land which has been held to be settled with plaintiff-appellant by the lower appellate court is itself slightly more than the area of the plaintiff's house. The area of the land C.D.E.F. regarding which the suit has been dismissed is about 7 to 8 times the area of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff claimed that he used to rear and tether large number of the sheep and goats for business use. Even if this allegation is correct such use cannot be said to be essential for the beneficial use of the house for residential purposes.