S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT second appeal has its genesis in the judgment and decree dated 10. 9. 1980 whereby civil Appeal No. 156 of 1973 was allowed and suit being O. S. No. 267 of 1969 filed for demolition of construction of defendant over the land in dispute was decreed attended with further direction to the defendant to remove the constructions within 30 days and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff appellant. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant defendant is present but there is no appearance for the respondent-plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE facts draped in brevity are that according to plaint allegations originally the land in suit was part of house owned by one Sahdeo. Sahdeo alienated the house in question including the land in question in favour of plaintiff by means of sale deed dated 4. 6. 1969 and it is claimed that that plaintiff has been in possession over the land in suit. The further allegations are that the defendants who had a covetous eye over the part of land, and had purchased abutting land, encroached upon it by constructing a Haudi (water tank) and embedded a peg and also raised some construction. It is in this backdrop that present suit was instituted by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendants in their written statement repudiated the plaint allegations stating that the land in question formed part of his property and Sahdeo, transferee of the land had nothing to do with the land in suit and that the defendants have been in possession over the land on which haudi etc. were situated prior to the date of vesting from the time of their ancestors. It is further claimed in the written statement that earlier there was a wall separating the two property which fell during rainy season and it was this wall which the defendants were raising but plaintiff instituted suit without any valid cause and got the construction stopped. It is further averred that the plaintiff misstated the boundaries of property in suit with oblique motive. It was further averred that the land in suit was neither vested in Gaon Sabha nor Gaon Sabha ever allocated the said land to Sahdeo. It is further averred that the plaintiff misstated the boundaries of property in suit with oblique motive. It was further averred that the land in suit was neither vested in Gaon Sabha nor Gaon Sabha ever allocated the said land to Sahdeo. In replication to the allegations in written statement, the plaintiff alleged that Sahdeo had got the land in suit from Gaon Sabha, which he purchased from him by means of sale deed. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if right of the plaintiff under Section 9 of the u. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act is not established, the right of Sahdeo on the basis of settlement of land from Gaon Sabha is proved. ( 4 ) THE trial framed as many as six issues for determination and in the ultimate analysis dismissed the suit holding that Ext. 1 (sale deed) was not related to plot No. 14/a1 transferred by Sahdeo. It was further held that receipt which is marked as Exhibit 5 was forged document. In appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit as aforestated. ( 5 ) IN Second appeal filed before this Court, following substantial questions of law were formulated. "a. Whether the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha has right to transfer land of the Gaon Sabha without there being compliance of the relevant provisions of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and the relevant rules framed under it? b. Whether the transferor of land, having no legal and valid title, can confer any title on the transferee?" Learned counsel representing the defendant-appellant strenuously stressed the point that there is a procedure prescribed under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act according to which the allotment of Abadi site shall be made by the Land Management Committee and since, the land in question, proceeds the argument, was not allotted by the Land Management committee in favour of Sahdeo, the allotment made by Incharge Gram Pradhan in favour of Sahdeo had no valid foundation and by thisreck0oning sale deed executed by Sahdeo which has been copiously relied upon by the plaintiff, cannot confer any right in his favour and the trial court rightly dismissed the suit. It is further canvassed that the lower appellate court erred in law in decreeing the suit on untenable grounds. It is further canvassed that the lower appellate court erred in law in decreeing the suit on untenable grounds. It is further submitted that the defendants have been in actual possession over the land from the time of their ancestors i. e. prior to the date of vesting and by this reckoning, proceeds the submission, the land was already settled in favour of defendants in view of the provisions of section 9 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. ( 6 ) IN connection with the arguments made across the bar, it is essential to have acquaintance with the provisions of Section 4 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. Section 4 of the Act may usefully be quoted as under: "section 4. Vesting of estates in the State- (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by notification, declare that, as from a date to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances. (2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considers necessary, to issue, from time to time, the notification referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect only of such area or areas as may be specified and all the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be applicable to and in the case of every such notification. " ( 7 ) IT is envisaged in Section 4 of the Act that on commencement of this Act, the State government may, by notification, declare that, as from a date to be specified, all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vesting the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified, called the date of vesting, all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances. ( 8 ) SECTION 9 of the Act being also germane to the controversy involved in this petition, may be referred to and it is excerpted below. "9. ( 8 ) SECTION 9 of the Act being also germane to the controversy involved in this petition, may be referred to and it is excerpted below. "9. Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings to be settled with the existing owners or occupiers thereof- All wells, trees in abadi, and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate belongings to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person, whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary, tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site of the wells or the buildings with the area appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. " It would appear from perusal of the aforestated section all the properties, which belonged to a person, were not intended to vest in Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (1) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The date of Notification published in U. P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary) is Ist July, 1952 which according to Section 4 of the Act is the date of vesting. ( 9 ) COMING to the plaintiffs case, it is noticeable that initially the plaintiffs case was that the land in suit vested in Sahdeo and subsequently, in replication, he changed the stand stating that Gaon sabha had allocated the land in suit to Sahdeo. From a close scrutiny of the record, it would appear that even the subsequent stand of the plaintiff that the land came to be allotted to Sahdeo by Gaon Sabha is not borne out from the record. In connection with this question, two documents may be referred to. First document worthy of consideration is Exhibit 1 A, which has been extensively quoted to contain resolution pertaining to allotment of land in favour of sahdeo. It is no-where borne out from the said document dated 25. 8. 1968 that any resolution pertaining to allotment of land in suit was passed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of Sahdeo. The second document copiously relied upon by the plaintiff is the receipt marked as Exhibit 5 issued by Incharge Gram Pradhan namely, Ori Giri. In my opinion, this document too arouses reasonable suspicion about its authenticity inasmuch as it has overwriting and bears two inks with two hand-writings. The second document copiously relied upon by the plaintiff is the receipt marked as Exhibit 5 issued by Incharge Gram Pradhan namely, Ori Giri. In my opinion, this document too arouses reasonable suspicion about its authenticity inasmuch as it has overwriting and bears two inks with two hand-writings. Besides, the entries in the receipt appear to be interpolated and do not appear to be genuine. In the absence of any valid resolution, mere receipt which is chequered with interpolations cannot bestow any right on Sahdeo as being the rightful allottee of the land by a valid resolution adopted by the Land Management Committee. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting with the submissions as aforestated, I would also refer to the Rules framed under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act in which is embodied the procedure for allotment. Rules 115-M and 115 N being relevant are excerpted below. "115-M [b-Other abadi sites :- (1) Abadi sites other than those referred to Rule 115-L, and vested in Gaon Sabha may be allotted for construction of buildings for residential or charitable purposes or for purposes of cottage industry in the following order of preference: (a) a landless agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village. (b) A bhumidhar, sirdar and asami residing in the village and holding land less than 1026 hectares (3,125 acres) (c) Any other person residing in the village. (2) Every allottee under this rule shall be required to deposit an amount equal to 40 times of the rent of the land calculated at hereditary rates which shall be credited to the Gaon Fund. 115-N ( C-General- (1) Whenever the Land Management Committee proceeds to allot housing sites under Rule 115-L or 115-M, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. 115-N ( C-General- (1) Whenever the Land Management Committee proceeds to allot housing sites under Rule 115-L or 115-M, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. (2) All allotment shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under Sub-rule (1) Where more than one person belonging to the same order or preference express their desire to be allotted a particular site the said Committee shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted: provided that the prior approval of the Assistant Collector-in-Charge of the sub-division shall be obtained for every allotment under Rule 115-L or 115-M. (3) The allottee of the housing site shall be given a receipt for the premium, if any, paid by him to the Land Management Committee and a certificate of allotment. The certificate shall be in z. A. Form 49-F which shall be prepared in two parts, the main certificate being given to the allottee and its counterpart remaining with the Land Management Committee for record. " ( 11 ) IT would transpire from a perusal of the above that allotment could be made with the prior approval of the Asstt. Collector Incharge of the Sub-division. As a matter of fact, allotment of any Abadi site entailed prior approval by Asstt. Collector, Incharge of Sub Division. It is also envisaged in the aforesaid Rules that Patta shall be issued on deposit of premium on Form 49 only. As stated supra, in the instant, there is no valid resolution having been passed by Land management Committee nor does it appear that any prior approval of the Asstt. Collector was obtained in compliance of the Rules aforestated. It also does not appear that any premium was deposited in Form No. 49 by Sahdeo. In the circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that there was no valid allotment in favour of Sahdeo and as such his title cannot be held good. ( 12 ) NOW I proceed to deal with the claim of the defendants over the land in suit. From the above discussion, the plaintiff has failed to bring home the point that the land ever vested in Gaon sabha or it is covered by Notification No. 9842 (1) ! ( 12 ) NOW I proceed to deal with the claim of the defendants over the land in suit. From the above discussion, the plaintiff has failed to bring home the point that the land ever vested in Gaon sabha or it is covered by Notification No. 9842 (1) ! A-1360-52 dated March 13,1953 published in U. P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary ). In this connection, the case of the defendants may also be taken into consideration. According to defendants, they haven been in actual possession of their property and the land appurtenant thereto from the time of their ancestors and thus, the land in question had come to be vested in defendants under the provisions of Section 9 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The case of the defendants is loaded with substance inasmuch as it is established from the record that the land in suit had neither vested in Sahdeo nor in Gaon Sabha and there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the defendants have been in possession over the land in suit from the time of their ancestors prior to the date of vesting, and as such I have no reason to hold otherwise that the defendants were not in possession over the land in suit from prior to the date of vesting. From a perusal of the finding recorded by the lower appellate court, wrongly held good the title of the plaintiff on erroneous presumption that Ori Giri Incharge pradhan had transferred the property in favour of Sahdeo who transferred the same in favour of plaintiff without delving into the aspects whether there was any valid resolution adopted by Land management Committee or whether prior approval of Asstt. Collector had been obtained in the matter to constitute a valid allotment in favour of Sahdeo. The receipt produced did not constitute clinching evidence to prove that the land belonged to Gaon Sabha or it was validly allotted to Sahdeo under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. ( 13 ) IN the above conspectus, the substantial questions of law raised by appellant in this second appeal are decided in favour of defendant appellant to the effect that Incharge Pradhan cannot transfer Gaon Sabha property without any valid resolution from Land Management committee according to the prescribed procedure. ( 13 ) IN the above conspectus, the substantial questions of law raised by appellant in this second appeal are decided in favour of defendant appellant to the effect that Incharge Pradhan cannot transfer Gaon Sabha property without any valid resolution from Land Management committee according to the prescribed procedure. It is further found that defendants have been in actual possession prior to the date of vesting and the land shall be deemed to be settled under Section 9 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and they are held to be owners of the property. ( 14 ) AS a result of foregoing discussion, the Second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court are set aside. The decree of Trial court is restored by dismissing the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. . .