RAVI CHANDRA Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Alld. Division, in an appeal filed against the order dated 9-7-1996 passed by the trial Court in a case under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B, Z.A. and L.R. Act was initiated in respect of the Khata Nos. 17, 31-B, 52 and 54 wherein the Plot Nos. 216, 218, 220 and 293 situate at village Sidhapur, Pergana and Tahsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh were claimed on the basis of Khatauni 1359 Fasli and 1362 Fasli. The declaratory suit was filed on the basis of lease granted on 7-2-1949 by the then zamindar in favour of Tejbhan and the amaldaramad was made and the name of Tejbhan was stood entered upto the basic year Khatauni. On the above mentioned grounds the revisionist prayed for declaration of their rights over the disputed land; on issuance of notices the then pradhan of the gaon sabha accepted the claim of the plaintiff-revisionist but the learned DGC (R) contested the suit by way of written statement whereby the claims of the plaintiff-revisionist were denied. On the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed for adjudication of dispute with regard to plots in question. The parties were allowed to advance their evidences in respect of their claims and after close of evidences the orders dated 9-7-1996/23-7-1996 were passed whereby the suit stood dismissed. Aggrieved by the above order of the SDO, Pratapgarh, first appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, which has been heard and decided, vide the Additional Commissioner's order dated 20-3-1998, whereby the first appeal has been dismissed as such, the aggrieved party has come up before this Court in revision which is being heard by this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court did not consider the even then available evidences advanced by the revisionist, that the revisionist filed a lease deed in original before the Additional Commissioner who did not take any pain to whisper a word to lease deed the basis of entire case, that the trial Court hussed up the entire matter in a very cursory manner, that the trial Court did not discuss even a single word with regard to Issues Nos. 3 to 5 and that the entire findings arrived at by the Courts below were unjust, improper, without taking into account the points involved into the matter. It has further been contended that there was simple evidence with regard to claim of plaintiff-revisionist because the matter agitated under Section 212 Z.A. and L.R. Act and it was finally decided vide the order dated 4-6-1964 passed by the ASDO, Sadar, Pratapgarh whereby the claim of the plaintiff-revisionist became final as the said order never stood challenged before any Court of law and hence, prayed that the revision be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below be set aside. In reply, the learned DGC (R) submitted that the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act and that the Courts below have considered the points involved in the matter and hence their orders should be sustained. He has also attracted my attention towards the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 13-12-1984 and the order dated 7-1-1974 passed by the DDC.