The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of adverse possession and its implications under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

JUDGMENT :

Before putting the facts of the case as per the framework of law, this Court feels it apt, to deal with the law first. As far as the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. are concerned, as per the constitutional mandate, as envisaged by Schedule IX, it has been given a special status by including it in Entry 11 of Schedule IX, which has been within the ambit of Article 31B of the Constitution of India. Article 31B of the Constitution of India in itself, prescribes that certain statutes, which are included under Schedule IX, will have a validation of act and the actions taken therein and all other arguments as extended contrary to it, will not invalidate an action or a right flowing from the provisions of a special act, covered by Schedule IX, because it provides that any Act, Regulation or Provision which are inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by the provisions of the special statute covered under Schedule IX, that would be notwithstanding to any judgment, decree and order of any Court or such act or regulation.

2. Under the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, a declaration of a right over a holding in possession of a person normally called as ‘tenure holder’, under revenue term, is envisaged under Section 229B of the said Act. In an eventuality, if a person is holding possession over the land without title, which is an admitted case herein, the principal recorded owner has had to resort to the proceedings, which are substantive in nature as contained under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which reads as under:-

“209. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title. – [(1)] A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force; and-

(a) where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar, [* * *] or asami without the consent of such bhumidhar, [* * *] or asami;

(b) where the land does not form part of the holding of a bhumidhar, [* * *] or asami without consent of the [Gaon Sabha],

shall be liable to ejectment on the suit in cases referred to in Clause (a) above of the bhumidhar, [* * *] or asami concerned and in cases referred to in Clause (b) above of the [Gaon Sabha] [* * *] and shall also be liable to pay damages.

[(2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party.]”

3. If the principal provisions, as extracted above are taken into consideration, it gives a Forum which is available to the principal owner, to evict a person in possession, it has been substantively provided under Section 209. That means, it is a substantial remedial measure prescribed to the recorded tenure holder to seek an ejectment of any person occupying the land without title. Admittedly, and also even as per the evidence on record, there is nothing to show, that the petitioner who claims himself to be the bhumidhar and executants of the agreement for sale dated 25.03.1984 in favour of the respondent, had ever resorted to any proceedings as contemplated under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R., for seeking an eviction of the respondent from disputed land by making an assertion to the effect that they are holding possession of the land without title.

4. Though this argument too, would be clouded in the instant case for the reason being, that the petitioner the tenure holder of the property, which was described at the foot of the plaint included the property which was lying in khet No. 100 having an area of 11 bigha, 14 biswa and 0 biswancies, which was agreed to be sold by an unregistered agreement for sale dated 25.03.1984.

5. The petitioner landlord does not dispute the fact of execution of an unregistered agreement for sale and he further doesn’t dispute the fact, that based upon the unregistered agreement for sale, the possession was already transferred to the respondent of the disputed property.

6. When there was a rival contention raised b