MOHD. SHAMIM Vs. INTEZAR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the order dated 29-9-2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act heard and decided vide trial Court's order dated 26-8-87.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was instituted by Mohd. Shamim son of Shafiq Ahmad in respect of plot No. 187 area 1.13.8 situate in village Lohra Mau, Pargana Miranpur Tehsil and District Sultanpur for declaration of bhumidhari rights on the grounds of a sale-deed executed on 9-8-1977 by Jan Mohd. and claiming his possession over the same since the execution of the said sale-deed; that defendant-respondent was contesting in respect of sale-deed dated 9-8-77 since its execution; that during the pendency of case defendant-respondent got his name entered over the land in dispute after the death of his father Jan Mohd; that Intezar Ahmad had no concern with the land in dispute. On issuance of notices the pleadings advanced by the plaintiff-appellant were denied by way of written statement; that plaintiff-appellant had never became bhumidhar of the land in dispute; that the land in dispute was in the name of his father Jan Mohd. and after his death he being natural successor got the same and his name was also entered over the land in dispute; that no objection and agitation in respect of the land in dispute was raised by Mohd. Shamim during the consolidation operations hence the suit preferred by the plaintiff-appellant was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act. On the pleadings of the parties as many as seven issues were framed for adjudication of the dispute between the parties and the parties were given chance to substantiate their claims by way of producing documentary as well as oral evidences and the parties did so after the close of their evidences the learned trial Court vide its order dated 26-8-87 decreed the suit of Mohd. Shamim. Aggrieved by the trial Court's order a first appeal was preferred before Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad which has been heard and decided vide Additional Commissioner's order dated 29-9-2003 whereby the trial Court's order stands reversed and the suit has been termed as barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Now aggrieved party is before the Board against the order dated 29-9-2003 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant mainly narrated the history of the case and invited my attention towards the relevant dates in the matter. He further submitted that Intezar Ahmad got right over the land in dispute by means of a sale-deed executed on 9-8-77 and since the execution of the sale-deed Mohd. Shamim was in possession over the same; that Mohd. Shamim perfected his title over the land in dispute hence the suit was preferred and the same was decreed in favour of the appellant; that the trial Court's order being just and proper and detailed one had wrongly been reversed by the lower appellate Court; that the order of the lower appellate Court was not free from manifest error hence the same should not be sustained.