Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for appellants.

2. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for plaintiffs is that in khasra of 1337, disputed land was shown as Abadi in the possession of plaintiff-appellants but the same has been ignored by Courts below illegally though in view of aforesaid entry, plaintiff-appellants were entitled for benefit of Section 9 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act, No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) and the Courts below have committed illegality in denying the same to plaintiffs on the basis of entry contained in the record of consolidation proceedings.

3. Section 9 of Act, 1950 reads as under:

“9. Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings to be settled with the existing owners or occupiers thereof.—All wells, trees in abadi and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site of the wells or the buildings within the area appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.”

4. It is clearly applicable when the evidence and proof exist that there existed a well or building on the land in question on the date of vesting. A person can claim benefit under Section 9 of Act, 1950 only on the ground that he was enjoying a building or house etc. on the land in question and not otherwise.

5. In the present case, learned counsel for appellants contended that even if there is no building which they were enjoying on the date of vesting, still on the basis of entry shown in the Khasra of Fasali 1337, plaintiffs are entitled for the said benefit.

6. The Courts below have considered the above submission and the fact that on the date of vesting, there was no building etc. which was being enjoyed by appellants and, on the contrary, the record of the consolidation proceeding clearly showed that the land was banjar and, therefore, vested in the State. Hence the plaintiffs’ possession is wholly unauthorised and illegal and he is not entitled for any relief.

7. So far as applicability of Section 9 of Act, 1950 is concerned, a bare perusal thereof would make it explicit that it is applicable only when there is evidence and proof of factum that there existed well or building on the land on the date of vesting. In absence of these things, Section 9 has no application at all. In taking the above view, I am fortified by this Court’s decision in Basti Ram v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and another, 1999 RD 636.

8. The Apex Court’s decision in Budhan Singh v. Babi Bux, AIR 1970 SC 1880, itself says that while deciding rights under Section 9 of Act, 1950, legislature intended to ignore rights of the persons having legal title to possession. This is clear for the following observations made by Apex Court:

“10. We are unable to persuade ourselves to believe that the legislature intended to ignore the rights of persons having legal title to possession and wanted to make a gift of any building to a trespasser howsoever recent the trespass might have been if only he happened to be in physical possession of the building on the date of vesting. We are also unable to discern any legislative policy in support of that construction. It was urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the legislature with a view to put a stop to any controversy as to any rights in or over any building directed that whoever was in physical possession of a building on the date of vesting shall be deemed to be the settled of that building. He further urged that it would have been a hard and laborious task for the State to investigate into disputed questions relating to title or possession before making th