Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 1366 (ALL)

State v. Karhey

1992-10-13

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This appeal has been filed under Section 331 (3) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of the Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly dated 31.10.79 passed in appeal No. 206 of 1978 against decree' and judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer Nawabganj, district Bareilly dated 11.1.1978, passed in suit No. 28 of 1976-77 under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that the suit was filed by Karhey on the ground hat he was a bhumidhar of the suit plot before the enforcement of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. He was recorded in 1367 Fasli khatauni i.e., the basic year of Khatauni of the consolidation. His name continued to be recorded in C.H. Forms 23 and 25 but by some mistake it was omitted in C.H. Form 45. The suit was contended by the State and Gaon Sabha on the ground that it is a Gaon Sabha's property and the suit is barred by Section 49 of U.P. C.H. Act. In first appeal the decree and judgment of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed on the ground that the disputed plot was all along recorded in the name of appellant Karhey. There is no evidence to prove that he was ever allotted any other land. He has examined the consolidation records and have come to the conclusion that it is by mistake that the plot has been shown as Abadi of the Gaon Sabha. Plaintiff-respondent is still recorded over the disputed plot in possession in Class 4. In these circumstances of the case the claim of the plaintiff-respondent is proved. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that there were two cases of the similar nature and the learned Member Sri Brijesh Kumar has already held claim of the plaintiff in other appeal. Whatever the position may be. It has been proved that he has got the valuation of the land during consolidation operation. The name of the respondent continued to be recorded after enforcement of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and before the consolidation operation he was continued to be recorded during the consolidation at the stage of preparation of C.H. Forms 23 and 25. It has been proved that he has got the valuation of the land during consolidation operation. The name of the respondent continued to be recorded after enforcement of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and before the consolidation operation he was continued to be recorded during the consolidation at the stage of preparation of C.H. Forms 23 and 25. In these circumstances of the fact the entry of Class 4 in the name of respondent is against the claim and title actually he is bhumidhar of the suit plot and in possession. 4. The second appeal of the State Government has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.