SADHU RAM Vs. KANPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Sadhu Ram against the judgment and decree dated 30-5-2000 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated 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 claiming possession over the land in dispute on the basis of a patta granted by the Zamindar much before the vesting. The learned trial Court after evaluation of the evidence oral as well as documentary decided the case against the plaintiff-appellant and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this order plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court which too was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur. Hence the present second appeal.

(3.) THE main contention of the plaintiff-appellant is that the land in question was given by Zamindar much before the date of vesting and since then he is continuously in possession over the land in dispute but both the Courts below did not agree on this point whereas the patta and the oral evidence is already on record. Contrary to this the learned Counsel for the respondents has very rightly put forward that even if the so called patta granted in favour of the plaintiff-appellant is taken for granted for argument sake that it was given by the Zamindar then after vesting it was the bounden duty of the appellant to have moved for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The age of the witnesses itself is a proof that they cannot certify the possession of the appellant which is alleged to be more than 50 years. Both the Courts below have rightly observed that the possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the land in dispute is not proved and the paper entries and so that patta on the basis of which the possession is being claimed by the plaintiff-appellant too cannot be relied upon because no mutation proceedings were drawn under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. No material irregularity or illegality has been committed by the Courts below. I find no reason to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is confirmed.