SYED MAZHAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 6.10.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration). Bareilly Division. Bareilly whereby operation of the order passed by the trial court was stayed :

(2.) The brief resume of necessary facts is that the trial court in a suit filed by the petitioner under Section 229D of the U. P. Z. A and L. R. Act for declaration of Bhumidhari rights over property comprising in Khasra No. 326 admeasuring 5-3-0 situated in village Jagatpur Lala Begum Pargana and Tehsil Bareilly, District Bareilly initially granted interim order dated 23.7.2003 directing the parties to maintain status quo and also restraining the parties not to alter the nature of the land or alienate the land in question. The aforesaid order received affirmance of the trial court vide order dated 16.9.2003 on subsequent hearing and in consequence, it was allowed to hold good. Aggrieved by the order, a revision came to be filed before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division, Bareilly and by means of the impugned order dated 6.10.2003, the effect and operation of the order passed by trial court was stayed. It is in the above background that the present petition has come to be filed,

(3.) The facts constituting grievance of the petitioners are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had died on 19.4.1976 and the property in question demised down to them. The assertion in the petition is that he gained knowledge of the fact on 4.11.2000 upon receipt of certified copy of the Khatauni that the defendants had got their names recorded as enure holders in the revenue record. On the other hand, from perusal of the written statement filed by the contesting defendants, the case spelt out is that Abrar Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain were the original tenure holders of the land in question who executed sale deed in favour of defendants and it was on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed that their names came to be recorded in the revenue records on 8.10.1976 and further that during all these years, nobody came forward to raise objection and it was for the first time that the plaintiff moved application for correction of revenue records which was rejected on 31.8.2001. It was further spelt out that plaintiff never challenged the sale deed executed by his predecessor-in-interest during all these years. It was further asserted that the land in question now forms part of Abadi of the village on which constructions have been erected.