RAMIYA Vs. RAGHURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 10-3-1997, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Appeal Nos. 77/25 and 71/49 of 1994-95/banda, arising out of the judgment and decree/order dated 19-7-93 and 30-6-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff, Ramiya instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act for declaration of his rights over the land in dispute, against the defendant, Raghurai etc. impleading the State of U. P. and the Gaon Sabha concerned, inter alia, pleading that his father, Jagannath purchased 1/3 share of the land, in dispute, from Devidin for his minor sons, the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 3 and the rest 2/3 portion of the land, in disputed was acquired by the father of the defendants 4 and 5 and all of them were bhumidhars in possession of the same since then; that since the Defendant No. 3 was his elder brother, his father got his name recorded over the land, in dispute, although his father had acquired the land in dispute, for both of his sons. The cause of action arose because the name of his elder brother was solely recorded in the revenue records which may adversely affect his rights and title to the same, in future. On notice, the state contested the suit, denying the allegations and filing its written statement. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered for recording of the name of the plaintiff as well, alongwith the Defendant No. 3 on Plot No. 26, vide its order dated 19-7-1993. Thereafter, on 29- 10-1993, a restoration application was moved by the Defendant No. 3, Raghurai along with an affidavit, to which objections were filed by Ramiya, on 28-1-1995. The learned trial Court vide its order, dated 30- 6-1995, dismissed this application. Raghurai went up in Appeal No. 77/25 before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same, set aside the orders, dated 30-6-1995 and 19-7-1993, passed by the learned trial Court and remanded the case to it for decision, afresh on merits, according to law; vide his judgment and order, dated 10-3-1997 and therefore, it is against this order that Ramiya has preferred this revision petition before the Board.

(3.) IN view of the above, this revision petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed and the impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, is hereby confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts, concerned. Parties to appear before the Court, concerned on 2-2-2004. Revision dismissed. .