RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. TEJ PAL GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Yadav, Member This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-1-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in an appeal No. . 52 of 1991-92, arising out of judgment and decree dated 22-6-1992 passed by the trial Court in a suit under Section 209 of U. PZ. A. & L. R. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that one Tejpal Singh s/o Lala Yadram, originally instituted a suit under Section 209 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act in respect of the plot No. 2577/1 for the ejectment of one Tejpal s/o Lala Mohan Lal. The plaintiff, Tejpal s/o Lala Yadram claimed his right over the disputed land on the basis of auction sale by the custodian on 13/16-11-68. The suit was instituted because Tejpal s/o Lala Mohan Lal occupied the disputed land by force. The suit was instituted before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khurja, Bulandshahar which was allowed vide the order dated 31-12-1984 and on being chal lenged, the order dated 31.-12-1984 was set aside and the whole matter was remanded to the trial Court, vide the order dated 26-3-1985 with certain directions for demarcation of the land by the Advocated Commissioner. Later on, the suit was transferred to the Court of ASDO, Khurja, for disposal according to law who after taking evidence and framing 10 issues in the matter passed the order on 22- 6-1992 and decree dated 4-7-1992. The above or ders were challenged before the Commis sioner, Meerut Division, Meerut which has been heard and decided vide the Addi tional Commissioner's order dated 21-1-1993 whereby the matter again remanded to the trial Court for decision and declara tion under Section 143 of U. P. Z. A. &l. R. Act. Aggrieved by the above order, now the appellant has come up before this Court in second appeal.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is crystal clear that the land in dispute was acquired from the custodian in 1968. Tej pal s/o Lala Mohan Lal, claimed his right prior to 1968 and has pleaded that he was in possession over the same and the same was in the knowledge of Tejpal s/o Ljala Yadram; Tejpal s/o Lala Yadram has been substituted by his sons Rarnesh Chandra and Puran Chandra, after his death. The order of the trial Court dated 27-6-1992 is detailed one while the order of the lower appellate Court dated 21-1-1993' is sketchy, cryptic and is also non- speaking; while passing the order dated 21-1-1993 the lower appellate Court i. e. the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has not applied his mind and has not considered the points involved in the matter. He has also not reversed the each and every findings recorded by the trial Court. In this regard I agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The submissions ad vanced on behalf of the respondents no force and the case-law referred to by him is also not applicable to the facts and cir cumstances of the instant case. The lower appellate Court has not indicated as to what irregularity and per versity have been committed in the order dated' 22-6-1992 passed by the ASDO, Khurja, Bulandshahar. In the circumstances the matter should be sent back to the lower appellate Court for hearing and decision after analysing and considering the points in volved in the matter.