Balbir vs State

Himanshu Kumar, Member.

The suit under Section 229B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by Balbir in the Court of SDO, Chhata, on the grounds that the rights over the land in dispute had matured under Section 122B (4F) of Z.A. Act. The SDO, Chhata, by his order dated 3121993 dismissed the suit on the ground that the possession was not proved prior to 3061995. An appeal against this order of the SDO was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra, by his order dated 1991996 with the finding that the plaintiff had relied on forged documents and false statement in his suit. Against this order, the present second appeal has been preferred before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the land in question was allotted to the appellant in the year 1976 but due to mistake of the Lekhpal the name was to recorded after the next year Khatauni, that he was in possession before 3061995, this making him fit to be beneficiary of Section 122B 4F of Z.A. Act, that in proceedings under Section 122B in the Court of Tehsildar he was given benefit under Section 122B (4F) of Z.A. Act by withdrawal of the notice against him, amongst others.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Despite repeated calls and notices no one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, perused the records carefully.

From a bare perusal of fill I find the learned SDO has given a clear finding that the plaintiff has not been able to submit any evidence of the discharge of the notice under Section 122B (4F) of Z.A. Act in the Court of Tehsildar. The plaintiff has failed to prove his possession from before the 30 61995 in the Court of SDO, Chatta. The learned Additional Commissioner has shown great clarity in analyzing in para 5 of his judgment the documents filed by the appellant at this stage of first appeal. I agree with the above conclusion of the learned Additional Commissioner that for the reasons mentioned in para 5 of the order dated 1991996 the documents are not fit to be relied upon . It is in itself enough to point the needle of suspicion at the case of the plaintiff that no where in the original suit has been relied upon his alleged lease deed which he has introduced at the stage of first appeal. The original suit has been filed on the basis of possession which too the plaintiff has failed to prove. For these reasons I am bound to agree with the findings and orders passed by the learned Courts below. These orders suffer from no infirmity and hence merits no interference. There is no substantial question of law inherent in this second appeal which is hereby dismissed and the impugned orders dated 1991996 and 3121993 passed by the Courts below are upheld and maintained. Let the records be returned within a week to the Courts concerned and this Court's file the consigned to the record room.