The failure to establish the entire plot as a graveyard for the Muslim community led to the dismissal of the appeal.

RAKESH TIWARI, J.--Heard learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal and learned Counsel for the respondents. Sri Ramrendra Asthana.

2. It appears from record that appellant/plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 67 of 2002 inter alia that entire Khasra No. 530 area 0.764 hectare of Village Bhawanpur, Tehsil and District Meerut is a graveyard of Muslim Community it is registered in the office of the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board of Lucknow at Sl. No. 3338. The Waqf Board has constituted a committee for the maintenance of the graveyard of which plaintiff No. 1 Sri Jalees Ahmad is the Mutwalli. It was averred in the plaint that the respondents belonging to logia Community claimed part of Plot No. 530 as their graveyard and were interfering in cremation of bodies of Muslims, hence it was prayed that they be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering in cremation of the dead bodies of the Muslim community in the said Plot No. 530.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant/respondents inter alia that whole land of Plot No. 530 area 0.764 hectare is not the graveyard of the plaintiff appellants above.

4. It appears that the plot No. 530 in dispute is construed of earlier Plot Nos. 848 area 1 Bigha, 18 Biswa Khasra No. 849, 4 Biswa and Plot No. 850/2 area 10 Biswa, 8 Biswansi Plot No. 446 area 4 Biswa and 100 Biswansi and Plot No. 847 area 3 Biswa, 10 Biswansi. In Plot No. 530, 14 Biswa and 8 Biswansi of the land of old Plot No. 849 and 850 was being used as graveyards by the Hindu Jogians.

5. Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal submits that the Courts below have committed an illegality in relying upon the finding of facts by consolidation authorities and placing reliance upon revenue entries for deciding title of kabristan on Plot No. 530. He has urged that admittedly Khasra No. 530 is registered in the U.P. Sunni Waqf Board, Lucknow that at Serial No. 3338 as waqf property but the Court below did not consider this aspect of the case hence grave injustice has resulted to the appellants as they have wrongly placed reliance on the contradictory statements/evidence adduced by the respondents and that Court below have wrongly discarded the evidence of the appellants which was reliable. According to the Counsel for the plaintiffs appellants the consolidation authorities had no right and jurisdiction to register the property in dispute of Gata No. 849 and 850/2 part of New Khasra No. 530 as Kabristan of Jogians Community in the proceedings under section 9 of Consolidation of Holding Act.

6. Per contra Sri Ramrendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly Khasra No. 530 was constituted by consolidating old Khasra Nos. 846-M, 847-M, 848, 849 and 850 and the entire area of which on the spot at village Bhawanpur was not Kabristan of the Muslim Community only. He further submits that the appellants could not identify the part of graveyard land which is alleged which the defendants wanted to take possessions of. He submits that in fact plaintiffs appellants wanted to encroach upon the graveyard of Jogians which is proved from Khevat No. 26 as the land in dispute lies in part of Plot No. 530. It is lastly stated that the findings of fact have been challenged in the second appeal and no substantial question of law is involved therein.

7. From the record it appears under section 9-A (2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act in Case No. 1787 Bhim Singh v. Gram Samaj, the Court of Consolidation Officer vide order and judgment dated 7.6.1968 had affirmed the fact the graveyard of Hindu Jogians was 4 Biswa on Plot No. 849 and 10 Biswa, 8 Biswansi in Plot No. 850 and that graveyard of Gram Samaj was directed to be registered on Khasra Plot No. 848 area 1 Bihga, 8 Biswa.

8. It appears from the argument of the Counsel for the parties that the appellants plaintiffs claimed the whole of land of Plot No. 530 as graveyard of Muslims whereas the defendants respondents claim their graveyard in part of Plot Nos. 849 and 850 wh