A second appellate court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless the findings are perverse, and claims to proprietary rights based on possession are invalid if mandatory procedural requirements for record-keeping were not observed.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4/1 to 4/3 is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aniruddha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for private respondent nos. 3, 4/1 to 4/3, Sri Ashuthhosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned cousnel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.223 area 2.42 decimal situated in village-Bishunpura, Mutalike Karnai, Pargana and District-Ballia. A suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) was filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 for declaration of bhumidhari right in respect to plot no.223 area 2.42 decimal. In the plaint, it has been alleged that in the year 1970 father of the petitioner has given disputed plot to the contesting respondents for looking after the same and after the death of petitioner's father, the respondents are in continuous possession over the plot in question. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner denying the plaint allegation. It has been alleged in the written statement that defendant no.1, Triveni Lal (Petitioner of the instant petition) is the recorded bhumidhar in possession of the plot in question, as such no right will accrue in favour of the plaintiffs. It has also been alleged in the written statement that during consolidation operation, the plot in dispute was allotted in the chak of the defendant no.1 and no dispute was raised during consolidation operation in respect to the plot in question. Issue were framed before the trial court and the parties had adduced evidence in support of their cases. Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.1999 dismissed plaintiffs' suit recording finding that plaintiffs have no right to claim declaration in respect to the plot in question, which is recorded in the name of defendant no.1 as bhumidhar. The finding has also been recorded by the trial court that no dispute was raised during consolidation operation regarding plot in question, as such suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act for declaration by the plaintiffs cannot be entertained. An appeal filed by plaintiffs before Commissioner was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 1.9.2000. Second appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents before the board of revenue has been allowed vide judgement and decree dated 13.2.2001 dismissing plaintiffs' suit. Restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioner before the board of revenue has been rejected vide order dated 18.6.2001. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for the following relief:-

"(i) To issue a writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.2.2001 and 18.6.2001 passed by Hon'ble Board of Revenue, the respondent no.1."

4. This court entertained the matter on 30.7.2001 and stayed the execution of decree in pursuance of the judgment dated 13.2.2001 and 18.6.2001.

5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 30.7.2001, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's ancestor were recorded as bhumidhar of the plot in question and petitioner is also recorded over the plot in question as well as in possession of the same. He further submitted that suit unde