RAM KISHAN Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Yadav, J. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12-6-95 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, heard and Decided by the SDO, Ghosi, District Man, vide the order dated 13-8-91.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through relevant papers on file.

(3.) NOW the question of decision is whether the consolidation Courts have right and jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of title over the banjar land or not. The next question for determination relates to the applications moved by Ram Autar and Chailhu for impleadment as parties in the matter. So far as the first question is concerned, in this connection the learned Counsel for the appellant at tracted my attention towards a case law reported in 1985 RD 153 in which the Hon'ble High Court held that the con solidation Courts/authorities have no right in respect of banjar land; the relevant paras are being reproduced below:- 'as regards the contention put forward by the learned' Counsel for, the appellant about finality of consolidation proceedings ii is obvious that admittedly the land in dispute was banjar. The Consolidation Authorities had no jurisdic tion to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in respect of the banjar land. It was said that the Banjar land does not form part of holding and. therefore, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the rights about such land. Moreover, the plaintiff's claimed easementary rights with respect to this land. Section 4 of the easements Act defines an case ment as a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses as such, for the beneficial enjoyments of that and, to do and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of certain other land no) his own. Thus, it is obvious that the adjudica tion about the easementary rights was not within the competence of consolidation authorities and so Section 49 of the aforesaid Act do not operate as a bar to this suit.