NARENDRA SINGH Vs. SMT. LEELA MATHUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased 19 biswa 11 dhur area of plot No. 663 of Khata No. 503, situating in village Pavi Sadakpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and Distt. Ghaziabad by a registered sale-deed on 18.9.91 from recorded tenure holders and got his name mutated in the revenue record as back as in Dec. 1991. He also claims that soon after the sale, he constructed his residential house over the said land and is in possession since then. Smt. Leela Mathur (opp. part 1) preferred a claim in Aug. 2000 for mutating her name over plot No.663 on the basis of sale-deed dated 18.7.1969, executed by one Sri Vijai Kumar Mittal. It appears that Vijai Kumar Mittal had executed a salc-dced on 18.7.1969, transferring 6 biswa 12 biswanshi and 10 kachwansi area of the erstwhile plot No.626. Tahsildar Ghaziabad allowed the claim of Smt. Leelawati vide order dated 12.8.2002 (Annexure-1) and appeal to Upper Pargana Adhikari, Ghaziabad, filed by the petitioner also remained unsuccessful as appears from order dated 21.4.2004 (Annexure-2). The revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed, vide order dated 14.5.2004 (Annexure-3).

(2.) The petitioner is challenging all these three orders on the grounds, inter alia, that he was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing, the claim of Smt. Leelawati based on sale-deed dated 18.7.1969 was barred by Sec. 49 of U.P.C.H. Act; that original sale deed dated 18.7.1969 was not filed; that it was not clear as to how she was saying that area purchased by her was in plot No. 663; that the petitioner was in possession by way of having pucca constructions; that opp. party No.l was not in possession and that she ought to have filed a regular suit for declaration of her rights.

(3.) Smt. Leelawati has filed counter affidavit alleging that the petitioner was duly heard by the authorities concerned; that once the land in question had already been sold to her by Vijai Kumar Mittal, his successor-in-interest had no right whatsoever to transfer the same again to the petitioner. It has also been said that the petitioner being minor, could not have purchased the property in question and could not have made construction thereon. She has also referred to the events that took place at the relevant period. It appears that a civil suit No. 435/2000 was also filed by Narendra Singh in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, but the same was dismissed in default on 29.4.2003.