LALLOO Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant on point of admission of appeal and perused the records.

(2.) In Original Suit No. 748/2002, Lalloo Vs. State of U.P. and others, plaint case in brief was that old plot no. 271, new no. 338, area 30 decimal was in possession and user of plaintiff's father Bullur since before the Zamindari abolition; and after death of Bullar, plaintiff became its owner in possession, and this property has settled with him under Sec. 9 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Defendants (no.-1 State of U.P., no.-2. Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, no.-3. Land Management Committee) have no right to interfere in possession of plaintiff, but they have declined the plaintiff's right on 18.9.2001. Therefore, plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction on 26.8.2002 for declaring him the owner in possession of disputed property, and for restraining defendants from evicting him from this property or interfering in his possession.

(3.) After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.-8, Varanasi had dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 29.10.2014. In this judgment, trial court had given finding that plaintiff had failed to prove its case about possession since before the Zamindari abolition. Trial court had also given finding that although there is an order dated 20.3.1964 passed by S.D.M. that disputed property was in possession of Bullur, but there is no documentary evidence on record that after said order Bullur or plaintiff had been in possession of this property. Trial court had appreciated the Khasra, Khatauni and other records of consolidation and Gaon Sabha and found that disputed property is continuing as property of Gram Sabha in the nature of Bhita, and such property cannot be in the title or ownership of plaintiff even in case of adverse possession. Apart from it, trial court had held that plaintiff had failed to prove its ownership or possession of disputed property. So far the entry of Bhita in revenue records is concerned, trial court had given finding that if this is erroneous entry then it can be rectified and relief in this regard can be obtained by plaintiff only in revenue court. Therefore, civil court has no jurisdiction to recognize that disputed property is not Bhita and is Abadi of plaintiff. On these findings, trial court had dismissed the original suit.