RUSTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Sec. 229-B/122B (4F) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act (herein after referred as to the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner impleading State and Gram Sabha as defendant in respect to plot No. 643 area 0.253 hectare. Trial Court framed issues in the aforementioned suit. The basis of the claim of the suit is that lease deed alleged to be executed in favour of plaintiff and in the proceeding under Sec. 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act the petitioner's lease has been cancelled in arbitrary manner but petitioner remained in possession of the plot No. 643. Trial Court considering the evidence adduced by the parties specially the fact that lease alleged to be executed in favour of plaintiff has cancelled in the proceeding under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, as such plaintiff is not entitled to be recorded as bhumidhari with transferable rights of the plot in question. The trial court decided the suit vide judgment dtd. 27/12/2010. Against the judgment dtd. 27/12/2010, a revision under Sec. 333 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act was filed on behalf of plaintiff-petitioner in the year 2019 i.e. after 9 years before the Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 9/12/2022 dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation and further revision filed by petitioner before Board of Revenue has been dismissed as not maintainable, hence this writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents submitted that the basis of the suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was lease deed and in the proceeding under Sec. 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act lease of the plaintiff has been cancelled, as such the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit vide judgment dtd. 27/12/1990. They further submitted that revision was filed after nine years which was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. They submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is labile to be dismissed.