Rajendra Singh vs Malkhan

Ram Janam Singh, Member.

This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 5111993 in a case under Section229B of the U.P.Z. A. and L.R. Act.

Briefly, staled the facts of the case are that the plaintiffappellant filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the trial Court on the basis of adverse possession over the land in suit. The allegation was that Gata No. 590 is merged into Gata No. 595 of the plaintiffappellant. Defendantsrespondents denied the claim of the plaintiffappellant but the learned trial Court on the basis of the order passed under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act by the Additional S.D.O. Saharanpur dated 10101984 and the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, dated 28585 has decreed the suit of the plaintiffappellants that they have matured their rights under Section 210 of the Act on the basis of adverse possession. Against this order a first appeal was referred before the learned Additional Commissioner Meerul Division. The learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal on the basis that the claim of the plaintiffrespondents on the basis of adverse possession is not proved because the orders passed under Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot confer any right on the basis of adverse possession to the plaintiffappellants. Under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, only the demarcation is done and the decision of the right of the parties is not done in that section. Aggrieved by this order, the legal reresentatives of the deceased, Sadhu Singh, plaintiffappellants have preferred this second appeal.

Heard the learned Counse for the parties and perused the record carefully.

I am in agreement with the observations of the learned Additional Commissioner that no right could be given 10 the plaintiffappellants on the basis of the judgment passed by a competent Court under Section 41, U.P. Land Revenue Act. Under Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act only the demarcation is done and boundary disputes are decided but the confirmation of the right on the basis of adverse possession is always raised on the legal procedure and the facts and the evidence on record. The plaintiffapellants have failed to prove their adverse possession on the land in question. In the absence of khasra entries and the extracts of khasra and the other relevant documentary and oral evidence the claim of the plaintiffappellants is not proved that they have matured their rights under Section 210 of the Act on the basis of adverse possession. Accordingly, on the basis of judgment passed under Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the conclusion of the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed for conferring any right on the basis of adverse possession'' The observations of the learned Addition. I Commissioner is well based on the (act and law and hence this second appeal deserves dismissal.

On the basis of the observations made above, the second appeal has not force and is dismissed.