The provisions of Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, are applicable only when there is evidence and proof of the factum that there existed well or building on the land in question on the date of vesting.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.

( 2 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court allowing the appeal of the respondent No. 1 and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff/appellant filed Suit No. 811 of 1996 with the allegations that Khasra Plot No 243 situated at village Raeespur, Pargana Pasna, District Ghaziabad belongs to him since time of his ancestors and he is in possession of the same. There are certain constructions as stated in the plaint which exist on the said land and the land was being used by him as abadi, Main door of his house opens on this land and he was possessed of the land in suit from before zamindari abolition and land is vested in him under Section 9 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act. The defendants had no concern whatsoever with the suit land and had wrongly got the land entered as Banjar land in the Revenue Records. Proceedings under Section 122b were initiated against him and orders of eviction and compensations were passed against him. Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. The defendants intend to demolish the constructions, hence the suit for injunction. It was alleged that the disputed land was not vested in the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and hence it has no right to demolish the constructions.

( 4 ) THE defendant/respondent No. 1 contested the suit denying the plaint allegations and it was stated that the land of Khasra No. 243 area 7 Biswa is land of public utility and is entered in the revenue records as such, it Is vested in Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam and the plaintiff has made unauthorised possession over it. Orders of eviction under Section 122b of the Z. A. and L. R, Act have become final and during pendency of the revision the land of Gram Sabha Raeespur has been vested with Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad. Provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act apply to the land in question and the suit is barred by the Sections 330 and 331 of the said Act.

( 5 ) THE trial court framed a number of issues. Issue No. 1 related to the ownership of the land In suit. The trial court held that the plaintiff was owner In possession of the suit land. The finding was arrived at by the trial court on the basis of Khasra Settlement of 1335 Fasli with respect to khewat No. 89 in which names of Dariyav Singh father of the plaintiff and one Karan Singh were entered, the Commissioners report 18c in which the Commissioner reported that there are old constructions of the plaintiff existing over the suit land and plaintiff has been using it as abadi. Trial court also considered the oral evidence in which the plaintiff stated that the main door of the plaintiffs house opens on the suit land and his denial of the fact that the well on the disputed land was public land, and, that plaintiffs statement that Tubewell and its Kothi belonging to plaintiff was also constructed on the said land. The trial court also observed that the contesting defendant has failed to establish as to how the suit land was entered as "banzar in the revenue records. The trial court also observed "that since the land was being used as abadi land, it could not be property of Gram Samaj.

( 6 ) THE lower appellate court reversed the finding of fact of trial court and held that the documents 51c has been misread by the trial court. This document relates to Khewat No. 89 in which there are 120 co-sharers. The plaintiff has not led any evidence that Plot No. 243 had come to the share of Dariyav Singh and Karan Singh and it is not clear from the said Khewat-as to which plot of Khewat No. 89 was allotted to which co-sharers. The lower appellate court also held that the plaintiff has not filed any pedigree of the family and concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was owner of Plot No. 243. Lower appellate court also found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was i