Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.M. DAYAL, J.
Madho Singh and Another - Appellant
Versus
Balister Singh and Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 2872 of 1971 in Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1971
Decided On : 30-07-1980
Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act - Land Exchange - The court held that the exchange of land between the parties was not hit by Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act as the exchanged properties were contiguous to the properties of the parties who received the exchanged portion.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs claimed a Rasta through the Defendants' land which they received by an exchange with Gaon Sabha. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court held that the exchange was not hit by Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exchanged properties were contiguous to the properties of the parties who received the exchanged portion, and therefore, Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act did not apply. The lower appellate court's dismissal of the suit was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the exchange of land was in violation of Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act and whether the matter could be challenged in a civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the exchanged properties were contiguous to the parties' properties, leading to the conclusion that Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act did not apply.
Final Decision: The present appeal failed and was dismissed, and no costs were awarded as no one appeared from the side of the Respondents.
K.M. DAYAL, J.
1. The present second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiffs. Brief facts of the case are that an exchange took place between the Defendants and Gaon Sabha in respect of a portion of land which admittedly belonged to Gaon Sabha The Plaintiffs claimed a Rasta through the Defendants land which they received by that exchange. The Gaon Sabha gave a strip of land contiguous to the Defendants property. The Defendants in lieu thereof gave another land contiguous to the property of the Gaon Sabha.
2. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the exchange was hit by provisions of Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act. The lower appellate court held that the exchange was not hit by Section 168-A of the said Act. It further held that in any case there was no cause for agitating the matter and challenging the exchange in civil court. It could have been challenged under the provisions of the UP ZA & LR Act.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellants and examining paper No. 30, the map prepared by the Lekhpal Ex. 6.1 find that both the exchanged properties were contiguous to the properties of the parties who received the exchanged portion. In these circumstances Section 168-A of the said Act can have no application. The lower appellate court has rightly dismissed the suit.
4. In the result, the present appeal fails and is dismissed. As no one has appeared from the side of Respondents, there will be no order as to costs.
AI
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
