RIAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four references made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, recommending that the revisions filed by Riaz Ahmad and others be allowed, and the order of the trial court set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that proceedings for ejectment of Gorkha and others were initiated on the ground that they had wrongfully occupied Gaon Sabha land, and had caused damages to it. Gorkha and others filed objection, stating that the land in dispute was Qabristan, and did not vest in the Gaon Sabha under Sec. 117 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, that the property in dispute was looked after and managed by the Board of district Saharanpur on behalf of Central Board, Lucknow and that the Khokha had been constructed with their consent. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that the property did vest in the Gaon Sabha, and that Gorkha and others had taken unlawful possession of the property in dispute. It ordered the ejectment of Gorkha and others, and also directed them to pay certain amount as damages. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Riaz Ahmad and others filed four revisions before the learned Additional Commissioner, from which the present references have arisen.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that a bona fide dispute of title being involved in the case, the trial court acted illegally in ordering the ejectment of the revisionists in these proceedings. He stated that the main point for determination was whether the land in dispute was the property of the Gaon Sabha, or whether it was Waqf property. According to him, there was a registered Waqf in respect of the property in question, and the trial court was wrong in taking the view that the property did vest in the Gaon Sabha. He pleaded that the ruling of the Honourable High Court as reported in 1972 R.D. 172, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He supported the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, and urged that the order of the trial court be quashed.