ORDER

The plaintiffs/appellants has filed a suit before the trial Court on the ground that Pannalal was the husband of the appellant No. 7 and father of the rest of the appellants/plaintiffs. The disputed land of Survey No. 159 admeasuing 2.157 hectares was purchased through registered sale deed from Vishnu Prasad s/o-Prasadilal paying consideration amount of Rs.50,000/-. The land was partitioned among the Pannalal and his brother Halke and Survey No. 159/2 admeasuring 0.796 hectares and the partition came in the possession of the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants have constructed a Kacchi Taparia (hut) on a corner of the disputed property to store the cow-dung and to tie their animals. The original defendant No.6-Chanda was working as a labourer and looking after the crops of the appellants. On 02-05-2017, the respondents got the lease right of 600 sq. feet of Survey No. 159/2 of the disputed land and claiming that they are the owner and possession holder and on that basis the suit was filed that the order passed by the Revenue Authority in Revenue Proceedings No. 01/v-66/2016-17 order dated 28-02-2018 is without jurisdiction, illegal and ultra vires and it is not binding upon the plaintiffs and also pleaded that the respondent No. 4 is wrongly constructing the road over their land and the possession of the disputed Tapari (hut) be handed over to the plaintiffs and injunction be granted.

3. The respondent Nos. 4 and 6 filed their written statement and stated that on the disputed Tapari, the respondent No. 6 was residing for 70-80 years. The respondents have constructed the house and is residing in it with his family members and the patta was granted to him under the provisions of मयदेश वासथान दखलकार (भूिमवामी अधकार का दान िकया जाना) अधिनयम, 1980 and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is as per law and appeal be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit and directed the LRs of the respondent No. 6 to hand over the vacant possession of 600 sq. feet land to the plaintiffs. The respondents were also directed not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs land.

5. In the appeal, the First Appellate Court has partly allowed the suit and ordered that except the land which is in possession of the respondent No.6 admeasuring 65 feets towards south side, 85 feets towards west side, 80 feets towards north side and 25 feet towards south side rest of land of Survey No. 159/2, is of ownership of plaintiffs and for that remaining part injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has argued that the trial court has rightly decreed the suit and the disputed land was purchased through a sale deed and partitioned in the name of Pannalal and his brother Halke which is supported by Ex. P/2 to Ex. P/6.

7. The Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to allot the land or grant lease to any other person on the land of a Bhumiswami. The order of the Sub-

Divisional Officer is against the law. Furthermore, he has also submitted that the respondents witness Kashi Bai (DW-2) in paragraph-4 of the cross-

examination has admitted that Kaushalya Bai, was the sister of the deceased defendant Chanda and the government has granted lease of two acres of land in the year 1977-78 and Kaushalya Bai died issueless and that land came in the ownership and possession of the original defendant No. 6- Chanda and he had sold the land to Halke and Hoti Prasad Rajak of village Bandhi. Chanda was also having agricultural land whom he sold previously. He has further submitted that the First Appellate court has wrongly dismissed the suit regarding 600 sq.

feet land.

8. I have gone through the record. The plaintiffs failed to prove that any of his land at the relevant time was in the ownership and possession of the original defendant No. 6-Chanda, he has also failed to prove that the land was sold by Chanda