SAURANG Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Sri R.C. Upadhyay for the Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Sri S.C. Verma for the respondent no. 4 and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh for the respondent no. 5 and 6 have also been heard.

(2.) This is an unfortunate dispute between the real brothers who claim to be in possession over the disputed land but the benefits of the possession over the land have been acknowledged only in favour of the contesting respondents hence one of the brothers is aggrieved and is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the revisional order impugned herein dated 11.9.2013 whereby his claim has been reversed.

(3.) The facts in brief are that undisputedly the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 to 6 are the sons of the same father. The disputed holding was being claimed to be in occupation by the contesting respondents no. 4 and 5 and subsequently they filed an application for acknowledging their rights in terms of Section 122-B(4F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The said claim appears to have been acknowledged in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 only vide order dated 17.6.1995.