AKHTAR HUSAIN Vs. MOHD SHAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a ref­erence dated 6-1-1 977 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly with his recommenda­tion that the order dated July 14, 1976, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the ease be remanded to the learned Trial Court for decision on other issues..

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the opposite parlies Mohd. Shami and Mohd. Omar filed a suit against the revisionist and the Gaon Sabha, that they are the Bhumidhars in possession of the disputed land and the defendants have no concern with it. The plaintiff have also prayed that in case the defendants are found in possession they may be ejected. The learned trial Court decided the first issue, which is whether suit is barred under Sections 27 and 49 of C.H. Act. It gave the finding to the effect that suit was not barred under Sections 27 and 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Addi­tional Commissioner has sent this refer­ence dated 6-1-1977 with the aforesaid recommendation for setting aside the order dated July 14, 1976, passed by the learned Trial Court. This reference was rejected and revision was dismissed on 29-12-1978 by the Board. Against this order the revisionist filed a writ petition which was decided by the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad on April 27, 1987 with the direction that the reference be decided on merits strictly in accordance with law. In compliance to this order passed by the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad these ref­erences are being decided on merits in consonance with the provision of law.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material and relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the rccoals it is amply clear that Smt. Bismillah Begum died on 29-5-1974 while she had executed a sale-deed of her share in the disputed holding on 14-9-1958. During the consolidation operation, the suit land was recorded in the name of the transferee (Revisionist) in C.H. forms 23 and 45. If the contesting O.Ps had any objection, they must have filed their objec­tion before the competent consultation authorities. Before the date of her death on 29-5-1974 contesting O.P. did not file any suit against the aforesaid sale-deed. The village has been de- notified after con­clusion of the consolidation proceedings and the matter has been finalized and the revisionist have been entered in C.H. Form-23 and C.H. Form-45. As such in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the contesting O.Ps. cannot re-agitate the matter in question which has already been finally decided during the consolidation operation.