RAM GOPAL DUBEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16-7-1993/12-5-1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in appeal No. 175/274/44/142 of 1974, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and decree dated 7-6-1984/17-7-1984 passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are that the plaintiffs, Ram Gopal etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act against the defendants, State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha, concerned for declaration of their rights as bhumidhar in possession of the land in dispute with transferable rights and the Gaon Sabha, concerned has nothing to do with the same, inter alia pleading that their father and they were in possession of the land in dispute since before the death of the original tenure-holder, the widow of Mahip and they were recorded in Ziman-7and that after the death of original tenant, the name of the Gaon Sabha concerned was recorded and they were recorded in Ziman-4 while they have now become bhumidhars of the land in dispute. On notice, the State of U.P. contested the suit, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that the land in dispute is the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide its judgmennt and decree dated 7-6-1984 and therefore, the plaintiff, Ram Gopal Dubey went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same, vide his judgment and decree dated 16-7-1993 and as such, it is against these judgments and decrees that the instant second appeal has been preferred by the Ram Gopal before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for theapellant and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact,the learned trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration sought, for by them and therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by it. The learned Additional Commissioner, while concurring with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, has observed that the land in dispute vested in the Gaon Sabha concerned after after the death of the widow of Mahip because she died hairless and Bhagwan Das was recorded in Ziman-4, being in unauthorised occupation of the same. The learned Courts below have dealt with the matter in question at length in an analytical and logical manner as well as in correct perspective of law and their findings have been arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence on record. No illegality or material irregularity has either been committed by them in rendering the impugned judgments and decrees and therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the simple reason that the entries in the revenue records for various fasli years were, in fact, rightly considered by the learned courts below and therefore, I entirely agree with the views, expressed by them. Since the tenant-in-chief, the widow of Mahip died hairless, the land in dispute vested in the Gaon Sabha concerned and therefore, nothing remains to be decided in this second appeal and as such, I am of the considered opinion that this second appeal, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright.