Possession for over 12 years confers sirdari rights; established orders must be recognized by revenue authorities to amend records suitably.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for State and Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondents.

2. In the present case, about 5 decades ago, a notice was issued on 01.01.1970 against ancestors of petitioners in regard to land in dispute under Section 122 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “Act of 1950”) for eviction. In said suit, vide a reasoned order dated 21.04.1970, the notice was withdrawn with an observation that since ancestors of petitioners were in possession on land in dispute for more than 12 years and since no proceedings for eviction were earlier taken, therefore, they have acquired sirdari rights and a direction was passed to initiate proceedings for imposing taxes. Relevant part thereof is quoted below:-

3. A second proceeding for eviction was initiated after a decade of above referred order and a second notice was issued in the year 1982 under Section 122 -B of Act of 1950 and on basis of report of Lekhpal dated 07.09.1982, proceedings were initiated, however, said second notice was also set aside vide order dated 27.03.1983 on same grounds with an observation that ancestors of petitioners may file a suit for declaration of their right. Relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

[Emphasis supplied]

4. It appears that thereafter ancestors of petitioners remained silent for a decade and when their names were not recorded in revenue records on basis of their long possession and since above two notices for eviction were already set aside, the petitioners filed a suit under Section 229 /122-B (4F) of Act of 1950 with a prayer to record their names as a ^^laØe.kh; Hkwfe/kj** In the plaint, proceedings of earlier cases were specifically mentioned.

5. In the above referred suit, following 5 issues were framed for consideration :-

6. The trial Court, after considering evidence on record, vide judgment dated 01.05.1998, decreed the suit with a direction that petitioners be declared as ^^laØe.kh; Hkwfe/kj** It appears that thereafter a recall application was filed by the State that they were not able to place their case properly earlier and same was allowed vide order dated 28.10.1998 with a direction to decide the suit afresh.

7. Since there was certain ambiguity in said order, therefore, petitioners challenged the same before Commissioner by way of filing an appeal which was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2000 with a direction that suit be heard afresh on merit. Said order was not challenged further though Court is of considered opinion that once the suit was heard on merit, after hearing rival parties, there was no ground to recall it, that it was not properly contested rather appropriate remedy with State was to file an appeal but since said order appeared to be accepted by the petitioners, therefore, Court is not entering into that issue.

8. In aforesaid circumstances, the suit was decided afresh and above referred issues were decided and vide judgment dated 30.11.2000, a contrary order to earlier was passed and suit was dismissed. For reference, relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

9. Aforesaid judgment was challenged by petitioners by way of filing an appeal, however, same was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2023. Relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

10. Aforesaid both orders were challenged by way of filing a Second Appeal before Board of Revenue, however, same was also dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2006. Relevant part thereof is quoted below:-

11. Aforesaid orders dated 30.