Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 710 (ALL)

Gaon Sabha v. Sri Shanker Junior High School

1992-05-07

BHAIRO PRASAD, R.P.GUPTA

body1992
JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta and Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This review petition has been filed against the judgment and order of single Member Sri I.B. Singh dated 31.1.1984 passed in second Appeal No. 99(Z)of 1973-74/Mathura arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the Land Management Committee adopted a resolution on 12.12.1960 to give 35 acres of land to Sri Shanker Junior High School. It is also mentioned in the resolution that after the consolidation operation in all 62.67 acre of land had been left during the consolidation as Bachat. From that 62.67 acres of land 6.35 acre land was decided to be given to the school. On the basis of this resolution Up-Pradhan executed a deed of gift in favour of school on 9.9.1961. The consolidation operation was complete but perhaps de-notification under Section 52 was not published, therefore, the mutation was applied before the consolidation on authorities and it was allowed in which the Gaon Sabha also appears to have filed compromise. The present suit was filed on 16.5.1972 with the allegation that the gift deed is void and the status of the school is that of licensee. The school has no authority either to pledge it or to sell it. If the land is not in the use of the school it will come back to the Gaon Sabha. The defendant's schools is recorded as sirdar (now bhumidhar) against law and fact. The defendant's school is denying the right and title of the school, hence this suit under Section 229 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 with the prayer that defendant has no right and title over the disputed plot and his status is that of licensee. The suit was contested by Sri Shankar Uchchattar Madhyamic School on the ground that they have acquired bhumidhari right on the basis of adverse possession. The school has also pleaded in para 9 of its written statement that the said gift deed is void and defended is also not bound by the term of that deed. The defendant also pleaded that they are imparting education in the area and on the basis of its possession they have perfected their rights and title as bhumidhar over the dispute plot. The defendant also pleaded that they are imparting education in the area and on the basis of its possession they have perfected their rights and title as bhumidhar over the dispute plot. After framing the issues and taking the evidence the suit was dismissed with cost on the Pradhan by the Sub-Divisional Officer Mathura on 9.5.1973. Appeal was filed against that decree and judgment before the Additional Commissioner, Agra. The Additional Commissioner by his judgmnet and decree dated 14.11.1973 dismissed the appeal with costs. The second appeal was filed in the Board which too was dismissed on 31.1.1984 by Sri I.B. Singh, the then single member against which this review petition has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Both the parties claims that gift deed dated 9.1.1961 is void, therefore, on the pleading of the party this gift deed is void. There is no provision under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in which the Land Management Committee can gift any agricultural land to any one, therefore, both the parties are fair in admitting the deed as void. We hold that the gift deed is void. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the State that the status of the school regarding the land given to it by the Land Management committee is that licensee. At that time the law was that Land Management Committee could have allotted 4 acre of land to educational institution. In the resolution dated 12.12.1960 of the Land Management Committee it was only resolved that the land should be given there was no mention of the fact that the school should be admitted as sirdar of asami, then the position is that the possession of the land was given to the school in order to facilitate imparting education and establishing the school, hence it was only just a permission by the land Management Committee, therefore the status of the School is that of licensee. 6. The learned counsel for the school opposite-party argued that the gift deed was void, therefore, possession of the school is that of adverse possession. 6. The learned counsel for the school opposite-party argued that the gift deed was void, therefore, possession of the school is that of adverse possession. The school has acquired bhumidhari right on the basis of adverse possession but in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in 1979 R.D. pages 226-227 no bhumidhari right can be confirmed or declared on the basis of adverse possession over the Gaon Sabah's land. Moreover the possession of the school over the disputed land was not adverse from very beginning, it has been permissive permission and the Land Management Committee still consider it to be sold. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. The legal position of the fact is that the position of the school over the Gaon Sabha land is that of the licensee. The school has no right and title to pledge it or to sell it. 7. In these circumstances of the case we allow the review petition, set aside the judgment and decree of the single Member dated 31.1.1984. We also set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and first appellant court. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed and it is declared that the status of the school over the Gaon Sabha land is that of licensee.