Ajab Singh & Ors. Vs. Antram & Ors

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 137811
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PARTIES:

Appellant: Ajab Singh & Ors.

Respondent: Antram & Ors

JUDGEMENT:

The respondents, No.1 and No.2 were not in actual possession and could not prove the same so they were not named as the real cultivators.

FACTS:

1. The leave was granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a consolidation proceeding under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. [1]

3.  A revision application was filed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950[2] by the respondent No.1 and 2 before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Agra, who resented the order and judgement given by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer.

4. The Deputy Director Consolidation reversed the findings of both, the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer.

5. One of many grievances raised by the appellant was regarding the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer as they were upset by the order passed by the Deputy Director, which according to the appellant is barred by limitation. So the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation is bad in laws and was anyway passed even though it ignored the bar of limitation.

6. The revision application of the Deputy Director Consolidation held that the revision cannot be treated as barred by time and would be applicable in a case like this.

7. At the time the respondents were minor and S.6 of the Limitation Act partly says that after the disability of a person ceases ( age, in this case), he may institute a suit.

8. The appellant does not suffer from any jurisdictional error because of the decision of the Revisional Authority in entertaining the revision at the instance.

9. Other issues that have been found in favor of the respondents No.1 and 2 are question of facts.

10. The appellants have not been able to prove that they were in physical possession. In light of the fact that it has been discovered that in the year 1377F, in 1379F in 804/3 no ownership is appeared, in 1382F belonging has been demonstrated to be of one year, in 1383F in one harvest nothing has been planted. In 1384F nobody has been demonstrated to be under lock and key, Khasra for 1386F has not been recorded and the Khasras from 1375F to 1385F have been documented, yet there is no evidence of persistent belonging.

11. Out of sight of this real position, the discoveries of the lower specialists that the name of the appellants ought to be recorded as Bhumidar isn't genuinely right. Along these lines a discovering which depends on the examination of the real angle by the revisional authority is regularly not angry with a prevalent Court except if it is certifiably demonstrated to be unreasonable. For the situation close by, no such case is made out.

12. The Deputy Director Consolidation has held that the appellants are not the real cultivators and real cultivator can't be denied of his territory on specialized ground particularly when revisionists have a place with a powerless area of the network as they have a place with Scheduled Caste (Jatav). We additionally don't discover any blunder in the previously mentioned discoveries showed up at by the revisional authority.

13. It is a very much settled lawful position that except if finding of the revisional authority experiences mistake of purview, the Superior Court ought not meddle.

14. The request for the High Court, in this way, has effectively affirmed the request passed by the revisional authority. We see no motivation to take an alternate view.

15. The intrigue is excused. There will be no structure as to costs.

REFERENCES