Yasin vs Gaon Sabha

Ram Janam Singh, Member.

Yasin son of Habib has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut dated 1511994.

Briefly, stated, the facts of the case are that the property in question belongs to Gaon Sabha and the defendant appellant got his name recorded in the land in suit over the property of Gaon Sabha and since then he is in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. The plaintiffrespondent filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground that the defendantappellant is not paying rent as Asami of the land in suit and the land which was given to him as Asami is not being cultivated by the defendantappellant and the Gaon Sabha needs the land in question for some other purpose. S.D.O. after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and on the basis of the evidence given by the parties the suit of the Gaon Sabha and ejected Yasin son of Habib from the land in dispute against which an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner. That too was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 15194. Hence this second appeal.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

The patta for Asami is not given for life time to any person. It is given for a specific period and after which if Gaon Sabha needs the land for some other purpose other than agriculture etc. then Gaon Sabha can very well file a suit under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for ejectment of that person who is in occupation of the land in suit. The same procedure has been adopted by the Gaon Sabha on the basis of leaseholder for not depositing the rent of the land and for the need of land by the Gaon Sabha, for other than the agriculture purpose. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding in which I find no illegality or material irregularity which needs interference at this stage, when the statement of Lekhpal does not prove the cultivatory possession of the defendantappellant over the land in dispute.

I, therefore, find no force in the second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.