FATTU SINGH Vs. SHEESHUPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by Fattu Singh and others against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, dated 6.12.1996.

(2.) Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent, Sheeshupal Singh and others instituted a suit under Sec. 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming to be the bhumidhars of the land in suit on the basis of trespass. They claimed their possession on the basis of trespass during the life-time of Smt. Alam Jahan Begum, and after her death and also after the vesting, they are in continuous possession over the land in question and the defendant-appellants have no concern with the land in dispute. Defendant-appellants denied the claim of the plaintiff-respondents in written statement that they have no right in the land in question because during her lifetime Smt. Alam Jahan Begum was in cultivatory possession over the land in question and after her death as a successor the defendant-respondent Nadir Shah became the bhumidhar and was in cultivatory possession over the land in question. The plaintiff-respondents did not file any objection before the consolidation courts and the name of Nadir Shah was mutated upon in place of Smt. Alam Jahan Begum without any objection from the plaintiff-respondents. The trial court after framing issues and considering the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents against which an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad, which too was dismissed on 11.9.95. Plaintiff-respondents preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was allowed and the case was remanded back with certain directions to learned Additional Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh. The learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad on 6.12.96 allowed, the appeal and set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 22.1.1983. The basis of allowing the appeal was the Treasury Challan No. 23 dated 19.4.1968. The learned Additional Commissioner did not pay any attention to the fact that there was no P.A. 10 issued. Hence this second appeal before the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.