Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Chunni - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And 5 others - Respondent
Writ - B No. 68450 of 2015
Decided On : 12-01-2015
UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act - Land Dispute - Section 229-B - Summary of Acts and Sections: UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Section 229-B) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 229-B of the Act, which pertains to the filing of suits for declaring co-tenure holders and sole tenure holders of land. The court analyzed the evidence presented, including documentary evidence, witness testimonies, and possession records, to determine the rightful tenure holders of the disputed land. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of possession rights, acquisition of land by common ancestors, and the legal implications of bhumidhari certificates and gift deeds.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition pertained to a land dispute under Section 229-B of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, involving multiple suits and appeals. The petitioner sought to establish his co-tenure and sole tenure rights over specific land parcels in village Mahadev Jharkhandi, District Gorakhpur.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments of the lower courts that had decreed in favor of the respondent, based on the evidence of possession, acquisition of land by common ancestors, and the legal validity of gift deeds and bhumidhari certificates.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rightful tenure holders of the disputed land, the validity of possession evidence, and the interpretation of documentary and oral evidence presented by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the findings of possession, acquisition of land by common ancestors, and the legal implications of gift deeds and bhumidhari certificates, as established through the evidence presented in the case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower courts and upholding the respondent's rights over the disputed land.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Singh, for the respondent no. 5.
2. It appears that three separate suits were filed under Section 229-B of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.
3. The instant writ petition pertains to land of khata no. 110 of village Mahadev Jharkhandi, Tukra No. 2, pargana Haveli, District Gorakhpur regarding which one of the three suit aforesaid were filed.
4. Insofar as the other suits were concerned, regarding land situated in other villages, the matter came up before this Court and the writ petition no. 31154 of 2015: Chunni v. State of U.P. & 6 Others was dismissed by the following order passed on 24.07.2015: -
"2. The writ petition has been filed against the judgment and decree of Assistant Collector (First Class) dated 28.08.1992, decreeing the suit filed by Ram Pyare (now represented by respondents-5 and 6), Additional Commissioner dated 06.09.2013 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 29.05.2014, dismissing the appeal and second appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid decree, arising out of proceeding under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. Ram Pyare (now represented by respondents-5 and 6) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 108/224/94) under Section 229-B of the Act, on 04.09.1973 for declaring him as co-tenure holder of the land mentioned in Schedule-A [consisting plots 228 (area 0.32 acre), 230 (area 0.02 acre), 231/1 (area 0.16 acre), 231/2 (area 0.35 acre) and 232 (area 0.28 acre)] and sole tenure holder of the land mentioned in Schedule-B [consisting plots 237 (area 0.36 acre) and 238 (area 0.33 acre)] of village Mahadev Jharkhandi, Tukra No. 1, pargana Haveli, district Gorakhpur of the plaint. It has been stated in the plaint that the land of Schedule-A was jointly acquired by Algoo (father of Jeut, defendant-1 and father-in-law of Smt. Jagia widow of Motiraj, defendant-2) and Bhaggu (grand father of Ram Pyare), who were real brothers. Algoo was elder to Baggu as such his name was recorded in representative capacity. After death of Algoo, name of Motiraj was recorded in representative capacity. Taking advantage of revenue entry, Motiraj obtained bhumidhari certificate and executed a gift deed dated 12.06.1969 in favour of Jeut. Damdi (son of Baggu) died during life time of Baggu as such after death of Bhaggu, Ram Pyare inherited his share. Bhaggu and after his death, the plaintiff through out remained in joint possession of the land in dispute. On the basis of gift deed name of Jeut was recorded over the land in dispute. The property mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint was property of Shiv Narain, maternal grand father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was co-sharing in cultivation with Shiv Narain and after his death he alone was in possession of the land in dispute. The defendants have no concerned with the land mentioned in Schedule-B. During minority of the plaintiff, the name of Jeut was wrongly recorded over the land in dispute, which is liable to be deleted.
4. The suit was contested by Jeut, who filed his written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It has been stated by Jeut that land in dispute was tenancy holdings of Jeut and his brother Motiraj and they alone were in possession of it. Motiraj obtained bhumidhari certificate on 11.06.1968 and executed a registered gift dated 12.06.1969 in favour of Jeut, which was accepted by him. His name was recorded in revenue record on the basis of gift deed. Joint property of the parties had been partitioned long ago between their families. The suit was filed on incorrect allegations.
5. The suit was tried by Assistant Collector, First Class, Gorakhpur, along with two other suits between the parties, who framed several issues. The plaintiff, apart of documentary evidence, examined Lalu Ram, Satya Narain, Badari, Smt. Sunari and Ram Pyare as witnesses. The defendants, apart from documentary
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
