KEDARI LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case gives glimpses as to what amount of ingenuity and guiles are exercised by someone very proximately related to a hapless disabled minor in grabbing his property. The dispute in the instant case hovers over plot Nos. 59/3. 77, 85/0.69 and 85/0.96 situated in village Moora Semnagar alias pandari, Pargana and tahsll Bisalpur district Pilibhit.

(2.) The facts squeezed out of the findings recorded by the courts below are that Jokhcy Lal father of the respondent No. 4 was the bhumidhar of the plots in question and was entered as such in the revenue record when he expired leaving behind Dwarika Prasad, then aged about one year. It is borne out from the findings that Dwarika Prasad was born in the year 1967 and further that the name of Jokhey continued in the revenue record even after his death and the name of Dwarika Prasad was mutated by an order passed under P.A. 11 on 11.3.1976 subsequently. Jt appears from the record that Munna Lal who was the real (phupha) of the respondent No. 4 and the only male relations in the close proximity, got his name entered in Varg 9. After the death of Munna Lal, his sons forced themselves upon the plots in question and even after the respondent No. 4 had regained entry of his name in the revenue records and the petitioners who are sons of Munna Lal did not part with the possession, the litigation erupted. The dispute escalated into filing of two suits under Section 229B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act-one by Dwarika Prasad opposite party No. 4 for claiming his bhumidhari rights and for expunging entry in Varg 9 and the other suit came to be filed by Kedari Lal and Ors. sons of Munna Lal in the year 1992 whereby they claimed bhumidhart rights on the basis of their possession spanning over 20 years. The suit of the petitioners reached the culminating point with decree being passed in favour of the petitioners and declaring them as bhumidhar while the suit of Dwarika Prasad ended up in dismissal. The decisions aforestated received the seal of approval in appeal preferred before the Additional Commissioner. However, a second appeal came to be filed by Dwarika Prasad before the Board of Revenue which met with success and in consequence decisions of the courts below were upturned and the suit of the petitioner came to be dismissed. It is in the above perspective that the matter has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. K. Lakhpatia appearing for the contesting opposite party. It bears no dispute that Dwarika Prasad at the time when entry in Varg 9 came to be recorded in favour of Munna Lal, was a minor and further that he was related to Dwarika Prasad as phupha (husband of father's sister). It is borne out from the record that Dwarika Prasad after the death of his father was recorded in the revenue record as sirdar but after the death of his father Jokhey, he being minor, Munna Lal got his name recorded in Varg 9 in the year 1376 fasli. Subsequently, it appears, petitioners taking advantage of the entry in Varg 9 forced themselves upon the property. It would also appear from the record that the name of Dwarika Prasad came to be recorded by an order passed under P.A. 11 and even after when his name came to be recorded in Varg 9 and the names of sons of Munna Lal continued in the revenue records, the litigation as aforestated erupted. The solitary ground on which is founded the claim of the petitioners is their possession (not in accordance with law) over the property spanning over 20 years.