LAKSHMI NARAIN Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAXMI Narain has filed this appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1997 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division.

(2.) BRIEFLY facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act before the trial Court on the basis of a lease granted by Gaon Sabha Raikepur in the year 1955. He also stated in the plaint that his name could not be mutated upon on the basis of the lease granted by the Gaon Sabha in the revenue records, but he is in possession since the land was allotted to him. The learned trial Court after evaluation of the oral as well as documentary evidence dismissed the plaint of the plaintiff-appellant against which an appeal before the Commissioner Division, was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner Kanpur Division, on the ground that the land in dispute is entered as Chargah in the revenue records cannot be allotted, to any body and even if he is in possession over the land as a tres-passer even then no rights could be given to him. Aggrieved by this order he has preferred this second appeal before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant argued that the land was allotted by the Gaon Sabha to the plaintiff-appellant in the years 1955 but his name could not be carried out in the revenue records for which he applied for mutation before the trial Court after a lapse of time. The Tahsildar summarily dismissed that application. Hence he filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act before the trial Court and the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that there is no evidence documentary or oral which could prove the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The patta on the basis of which he applied for mutation and is contesting this suit is also not on record. The learned Additional Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal that no such evidence is there on records to prove that the land was allotted to him because the land is recorded in verg 5 (3)(Ga) i.e. pasture land comes under Section 132 of the UPZA and LR Act. The nature of such land cannot be changed by anybody because only the State is competent to make such amendment. Hence the allotment story falls. If it is treated that the plaintiff-appellant is in adverse possession over the land as a tres-passer even then he cannot be given any right over this land. No body can perfect his right on the basis of adverse possession on the land recorded in the name of State or Gaon Sabha. I think both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff-appellant have no case to perfect his right on the basis of allotment or on the basis of adverse possession.