NAGAR MAHAPALIKA Vs. RIKHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal No. 96 of 77-78 is filed by the plaintiff Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, against the Rikhi Lal and State of U.P. while second appeal No. 106 of 1977-78 is filed by the defendant Rikhi Lal against Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and State of U.P. By these appeals the same order of the Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad dated 8-11-77 was challenged by the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1. Both these appeals are heard together.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the plaintiff Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur on 10-2-76 in the court of S.D.O. Kanpur filed a suit under Sec. 229/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the defendants Rikhi Lal and State of U.P. regarding plots No. 835/1-6-0, 866/0-2-0, 867/0-15-0 and 1255/0-4-0 situated in village Sanigawan Tahsil and district Kanpur with in the limit of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The plaintiff alleged that the land in suit on the date of vesting had vested in Gaon Sabha being vacant land. On 1-2-60 by notification the land in suit had vested in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The defendant No. 1 wrongly got his name recorded over the land in suit in 1367 Fasli and is claiming his possession. As such suit for declaration and dispossession of the defendant No. 1 is filed. The defendant No. 1 Rikhi Lal contested the suit and alleged that he had taken land in suit from Zamindarand became its Sirdar. In every case being in possession for more than 20 years he became Sirdar by adverse possession. Usar and Banjar entries were wrong. By amending W.S. the defendant No. 1 alleged that he was Chamar the member of schedule casts and being landless agricultural labourer in possession of the land in suit on 30-6-75, he became its Sirdar under Sec. 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Twelve issues were framed by the trial court who after taking evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 23-3-77. The defendant No. 1 filed appeal against this judgment which was allowed by the learned Addl. Commissioner Allahabad on 8-11-77 regarding plot No. 866/0-2-0 and 867/ 0-15-0 and was dismissed regarding other two plots holding that these two plots No. 835 and 1255 were pasture land in which the Sidari rights could not have accrued. Against this judgement both the plaintiff and defendant No, I filed the present second appeals.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Sec. 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. was not applicable regarding Nagar Mahapalika land. It was applicable on Gaon Sabha land only. According to him the judgment of trial court was the correct judgement. In reply the learned counsel for the defendant argued that plaintiff nowhere alleged in the plaint that plot No. 835 and 1255 were pasture land and as such the appeal of defendant should have been allowed regarding all the four plots. He further argued that as Nagar Mahapalika entered in the shoes of Gaon Sabha, Sec. 122B (4F) was applicable, He relied on A.I.R. 1976 Allahabad 121 and argued that in fact owner of the land is State of U.P. who gave sirdari rights to the members of schedule castes by amending the Act and adding Sec. 122B (4F).