9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndari Act). The appeal relates to one of the two sets of plots in village Pakar, Tappa Pachauri, Pargana Hasanpur Maghar, Tehsil Sadar, P.O. Madanpur, District Gorakhpur -- one set consisted of 12 plots and the other consisted of 13 plots. In both these sets of plots, the appellants were recorded as occupants along with some other persons in different combinations. Here, we are concerned with the set of 13 plots, namely, plot Nos.131, 132, 388, 465, 471, 758, 760, 855, 893, 894, 895, 896 and 897. Both those sets of plots were combined and joint entries were made in revenue records. Appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for correction of the entries. Appeal Nos.784 and 785 relate to correction of entries in the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded as Khatedar, was not denied. What was argued before him was that respondents 3 and 4 being sisters sons of Bal Karan were not entitled to the land after the death of Smt.Partapi. It was, however, admitted that the appellants herein were in possession of the land 1359 F but it was argued that they were simply asamis and they had not acquired any Sirdari rights. The contention of the appellants herein before the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was that even if they were held to be asamis, as they were not ejected within the period of limitation by filing a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Zamindari Act, they acquired Sirdari rights. The alternative submission was that they had perfected their right by adverse possession. The Deputy Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 209 contemplates filing of a suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title. In the civil litigation which started after the death of Smt.Partapi, the plaint was directed to be returned by the learned District Judge, in the appeals filed by the appellants herein, on the ground that the appellants were asamis and their ejectment could not be sought in a civil court. Evidently Section 209 does not postulate eviction of asamis. Now, they cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by claiming that they are not asamis either under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952 or by virtue of the entries made in the records and even so they ceased to be asamis on the death of Smt.Partapi under Section 191 of the U. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that inasmuch as the civil suit was barred in view of the provisions of Section 331, read with Schedule II of the U.P.Zamindari Act, any finding recorded by the civil court could not be taken note of in the proceedings under the Consolidation Act. In our view, this submission is mis-conceived. Section 331 read with Schedule II bars jurisdiction of the civil court only in respect of such reliefs which are mentioned in Schedule II and for their adjudication another authority has been prescribed thereunder. The suits were filed by Ram Dulare (father of respondents 3 and 4) for the reliefs of declaration of bhumidari rights and for ejectment of the persons in possession including the appellants. The relief of ejectment of asamis which bars t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
