State vs Ahmad Husain - 1992 Supreme(All) 1551

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1992 Supreme(All) 1551

BHAIRO PRASAD
State – Appellant
Versus
Ahmad Husain – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Devendra Nath, D.G.C. (R.), for the State; K.G. Srivastava and Girish Sonkar, Advocates, for the Opp. Party

JUDGMENT

Bhairo Prasad, M. - These two references have been referred by the Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division Bareilly by a common recommendation dated 26.10.1991 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1931.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that Ahmad Husain filed two suits in the trial court under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the State and Gaon Sabha. Suit No. 11 was filed regarding plot No. 1 area 9-4-3, Plot No. 19 area 1-10-15 and plot No. 28 area 4-0-0 of village Raiya, Nagla, Pergana Sirauli Tahsil Mirganj, District Bareilly for declaration of bhumidhari right. Suit No. 12 of 1990-91 was filed by Ahmad Husain against the State and Gaon Sabha regarding plot No. 28 area 9-16-13 of village Raiya Nagla, Pergana Sirauli. Tahsil Mirganj, district Bareilly for the declaration of bhumidhari right. These two suits were filed on the ground that he was ordered to be recorded over the corresponding whole these plots by the Tahsildar in 1953-54. During the consolidation disputed plot has been recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, hence these suits. The State and Gaon Sabha were finally served by publication in news paper daily 'Vishwa Manav' Bareilly dated 17.2.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document