KHEM CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeal dated 30-12-1993 has been filed against the order dated 27-10-1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner the Counsel for the applicant submitted a list of substantial issues of law invoked in the case on 17-11-2005. In fact, thus issue ought to have been considered at the time of admission itself.

(2.) THE Counsels of the parties over heard and the documents perused. In fact, cross appeals have been filed in this case. Whereas the State of U.P. has stated that the first appeal order be set aside the OPs have contended that their rights be decreed on both the plots. It is an undisputed fact that the disputed land falls within the municipal limits. Relying on the judgment of the Board of Revenue, the Additional Commissioner concluded that the extension of the area of Municipal Units would not affect the rights of the person in adverse possession. The Additional Commissioner examined the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the OP was in adverse possession with regard to No. 120/4. There is an indication on paper that Khem Chandra was in possession of additional 7 biswas but there is no finding on whether the other conditionalities are fulfilled for him to have obtained the rights over this land as in case of 120/4. Thus, the OP cannot claim right over this additional land.

(3.) HENCE , both the Second Appeal as well as the Cross-objections filed by OPs fail and therefore, rejected.