SHANTI DEVI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Both these writ petitions are against the order of Board of Revenue arising out of the proceedings in Suit No. 322 of 1969 filed before the Collector 1st Class, Gorakhpur under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE dispute relates to Plot No. 78/1/2 situate in village Daudpur, Pargana Haveli, Tahsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur, area 1. 7 acres. THE Zamindari in this village was abolished on 1. 7. 1966 under the provisions of U. P. Urban Areas 'zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956. Balli and Bail Nath, sons of Jagannath, were recorded as hereditary tenants of the disputed proper ty. After the death of Baij Nath his two daughters, namely, Smt. Chandra Devi and Smt. Shanti, claimed their rights by way of succession.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed suit on the allegation that Balli and Baij Nath, sons of Jagannath, were recorded as hereditary tenants of the disputed plot. Defen dants have no right and title over the disputed land. In Para 4 of the plaint it was stated that Naurtam Tewari, defendant No. 1, in collusion with the Lekhpal illegally got his name entered as tenanat-in-chief over the plot in dis pute in the revenue records and started threatening to take possession. Naurotam Tewari, defendant-respondent No. 3 (in reference to writ petition No. 3936 of 1982) filed written statement. He contested the suit on the ground that plaintiffs are not sirdars of the land in dispute. Balli and Baij Nath were co-tenants of the land in dispute. THEre was a private partition amongst them and the land in dispute came into exclusive share of Baij Nath. Baij Nath took money from him and after having taken money he surrendered his rights to the zamindar and with the consent of zamindar he delivered pos session to him on 3. 12. 1963 and since then he is coming in possession of the land in dispute with the consent of zamindar and Baij Nath. THE suit is barred by limitation as it was not filed within the period of limitation and he has prescribed his right by adverse possession. He further obtained bhumidhar certificate after depositing ten times of the revenue before the appropriate authority.