CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Pandey, Member. This is a second appeal and a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order, dated 24-2- 1994, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal No. 27 of 1992 and revision petition No. 46 of 1992/varanasi, abating both the cases along with the suit under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant Second appeal as well as the revisin are that the plaintiffs, Chandra Shekhar etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the defendants, before the learned trial Court for declaration of their rights as Bhumidhar, in possession of the grove in dispute, on the basis of his possession with permission of the then zamindar, concerned, pleading that due to the mistake of the Lekhpal, concerned, his name was omitted to be recorded in the revenue records. The State of U. P. contested the suit, denying the allegations, while no objection was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, concerned. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide its order and decree, dated 12-8-1988. It is against this decree that the Gaon Sabha concerned preferred a Revision No. 46 of 1992 before the learned Additional Commissioner. Thereafter, aggrieved by the decree, dated 12-8- 1988, passed by the learned trial Court, the Gaon Sabha, concerned filed a restoration application on 1- 10-1988 before it, which stood rejected, vide its order, dated 21-11-1992 and it is against this order that the First Appeal No. 27 of 1992 was preferred by the Gaon Sabha, concerned before the learned Additional Commissioner who has abated both the case under Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act along with the suit, vide his order, dated 24-2-1994 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant second appeal and the revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs before the Board.

(3.) IN view of the above, the instant second appeal and the revision petition, being devoid of merits, in accordingly, dismissed and the impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is hereby, confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith, to the Courts, concerned.