SHIV SHANKER Vs. KANAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Shanker has filed this second appeal under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1995 passed by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the learned trial Court on the basis of long standing possession over the land in dispute for the last more than 18 years. The learned trial Court framed relevant issues took evidence oral as well as documentary and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and his possession for the last 18 years is also not proved. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Kanpur which too was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner dated 15-2-95 by confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) WHETHER the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act or not. This issue is taken up as a preliminary issue. The consolidation proceedings started in the year 1971. The land in question was recorded in the name of the defendant-respondents in the fasli year of 1379 Fasli i.e. 1972. The plot remained Achak but the plaintiff-appellant neither moved consolidation Courts for their rights nor could prove that the land in question was chak-out. Claiming bhumidhari rights on the basis of long standing possession the plaintiff-appellants have failed to prove in what capacity they are in possession. If the possession is of adverse nature then the issuance of P.A. 10 and its service thereon on the concerned party and the compliance of Para A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual should be there. But nothing has been said on these points. I think both the Courts below have given right conclusion by dismissing the claim of the plaintiff-appellants. At this stage I find no illegality or any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below in passing the order.