Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 268 (ALL)

Alimullah v. Gaon Sabha

1992-02-24

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appeal has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment dated 15.6.1987 passed by Shri G.D. Punetha, Additional Commissioner(Judicial) in appeal No. 38 of 1986-87 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1987 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha, district Moradabad in suit No. 1 of 1984 under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are recorded asamis over plot No. 328 area 30.99, 329 area 22.11 and 341 area 13.30 (three plots total area 66.42). The Gaon Sabha filed the suit under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for the ejectment of these persons on the land that they are not resident of the village, they do not cultivate themselves but had let out the disputed plots to the small landless agricultural labourers of the village. Hence they should be ejected. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants on the ground that the Gaon Sabha has no right and title over the land they have acquired bhumidhari right as they were in possession over the disputed plot well before the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. They also contended that the land had not vested in the State and Gaon Sabha after the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Their claim is also that they used to cultivate most of the land and used to grow Singhare in the rest of the area which used to remain under the water. 4. The learned trial court taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them decided that they are liable to be ejected under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on 15.1.1987. 5. Against that decree and judgment an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad. He also confirmed the finding of the trial court holding that they are asamis of the land covered with water and are liable to ejectment vide his decree and judgment dated 15.6.1987. Against this second appeal has been filed in this court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. He also confirmed the finding of the trial court holding that they are asamis of the land covered with water and are liable to ejectment vide his decree and judgment dated 15.6.1987. Against this second appeal has been filed in this court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. Both the courts below have concluded the finding on fact that the dispute plot was recorded as land covered with water before the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and hence the land vested in the State and then Gaon Sabha. It is, therefore, the appellants are only asamis under Section 21-E of U.P. No. 1 of 1951. They are liable to ejectment of the suit of the Gaon Sabha. The appellants are resident of Mohalla Sarai Pukhta, Amroha, district Moradabad. The disputed land is in village Pooranpur of Tehsil Amroha, District Moradabad. The total area is 66.42 in which the share of each appellants will come 11.07 each. The area also much higher to be leased out to an asami although the area had been in possession of the appellants father and after him appellants before the enforcement of U.P. No. 1 of 1951. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant only argued that the Goan Sabha has right to file the suit for ejectment but they should give the ground why the Gaon Sabha needs the land and want to eject the asami. No such finding has been recorded by either of the courts below, therefore, they should be directed to record the finding. There is ample circumstances to prove that the land is not being cultivated personality by the appellant as they are not resident of the area and they are resident of Amroha Municipality. The area which they are asamis is also more than prescribed limit to be let out by the Gaon Sabha after the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In these circumstances there is sufficient ground for the ejectment of these asamis and I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of the courts below who has given a concurrent finding on all issues involved in this suit. 9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.