PREETAM LAL Vs. MAHARAJ NARAYAN ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREETAM and others have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9-10-2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that plaintiff-Maharaj Narain filed a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the trial Court on the ground that he is in possession over the land in dispute much before the abolition of Zamindari. The land was given to him by the then Zamindar and since then he is in possession over the land in dispute. When the defendant-appellants started interfering in his possession then he filed a suit before Munsif Pilibhit which was decided in his favour by restraining the defendant-appellants not to interfere in his possession but his name could not be recorded in revenue records because they approached the Tahsildar and the S.D.O. and both of them refused to do so. Then he had no option but to file a regular suit. The learned trial Court after framing the relevant issues and after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of suit being barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The allegation of the plaintiff-respondents that the name of the Gaon Sabha was recorded during the consolidation proceedings and on that basis the lease granted in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is also illegal but the plaintiff-respondent could not prove to the hilt how and why his name was deleted during the consolidation proceedings and the name of the Gaon Sabha was recorded. It clearly proves that after the vesting consolidation proceedings intervended and the land was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha and on that basis it was allotted to the defendant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, the conclusion of the learned trial Court that the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act needs no interference at this stage. It is a legal conclusion which needs no interference. As regards the conclusion of the learned Additional Commissioner he has not said anything about the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. His judgment is factually and legally not correct. It needs interference.