DARSAN AND ORS. Vs. SATPAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application dated 29-12-1995 was filed by way of second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner.

(2.) THREE Appeals were filed against the order and decree dated 31-8-1995 and 4-10-1995 before the Additional Commissioner. A perusal of the file of the trial Court reveals that a suit was filed by Satpal under Section 122-B 4 (f)/229-B of ZA and LR Act. During the pendency of the suit. Rampal and others claimed that the disputed land had been allotted to them by the concerned SDO and Satpal had moved an application is the Court of Additional Collector for cancellation of this patta. Which was rejected. After considering the documents on record, the trial Court concluded the disputed land has been entered as ''Chargah`` and, hence, being a public land it could not be allotted under Section 132 of UPZA and LR Act, except for a limited period as `asami'. In the instance case as the period was over Rampal and others could not claim any right over the land. Even the suit of Satpal was dismissed on the ground of the land being of public utility.

(3.) I have heard the Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records on file. The primary finding of the trial Court that the disputed land was ''Chargah`` has neither been contested nor settled by the appellate Court. The appellate Court merely comes to the conclusion that there was adverse possession. For the sake of agreement, even if this is accepted, no permanent right can accrue on the basis of adverse possession of land of public utility. The decree in favour of Satpal is, therefore, not correct.