BAL KISHAN Vs. SUMMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24-4-1996/22-5-1996, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Appeal No. 34/53 of 1991-92, allowing the same and reversing t he judgment and decree, dated 31-1-1992/12-2-1992, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant second appeal are that the plaintiff, Tulaiya instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants, U. P. State etc. for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the land, in dispute, inter-alia pleading that inspite of the fact that he was in possession of the land in dispute, for over 20-25 years and the proceedings under Rule 115-C of the UPZA & LR Rules were dropped and he was not ejected and was deemed to be the bhumidhar of the land, in dispute with non-transferable rights, the Gaon Sabha, concerned allotted the same fraudulently in favour of the Defendant No. 3, Bal Kishan which has no effect whatsoever on his rights and title, that since the name of the plaintiff is not recorded as bhumidhar of the land in dispute with non-transferable rights, his rights may be adversely affected in future and therefore, the cause of action arose. On notice, the Defendant No. 3, Bal Kishan contested the suit denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that he is a bona-fide allottee of the land in dispute as the lease in question has been validly granted to him by the Gaon Sabha concerned, of which amaldaramad has already been completed and therefore, the plaintiff has no claim whatsoever over the land, in dispute and his suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide its judgment and decree dated 31-1-1992 against which he went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same and declared the plaintiff as bhumidhar of the land, in dispute with non-transferable rights, vide his judgment and decree, dated 24-4-1996 and therefore, it is against this judgment and decree that the instant second appeal has been preferred by Bal Kishan before the Board.

(3.) IN consequence, this second appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, is hereby confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts, concerned. Appeal dismissed. .