Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter:-

"9. Both the court below have committed illegality in not applying the period of limitation for executing order dated 18.06.1969 of Assistant Collector Ist Class under rule 115-C which became final after rejection of revision by Board. The reasoning of both the courts below that period of limitation for execution of decree is not applicable to such order is highly erroneous and there is no evidence on record that any dakhal was taken and the plaintiff- appellant was ejected from the disputed land by executing the order of ejectment of plaintiff from disputed land. The period being only one year which lapsed long ago and the evidence of plaintiff P.W 1, P.W 2 Kashiram and son of the plaintiff Pratap Singh P.W. 3 go to prove that the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the disputed land since more than 12 years and he was never ejected from the disputed land. The statement of Baijnath D.W. 1 can not be believed that he had ejected the plaintiff from the disputed land because he has no authority to do so without any parwana of execution of ejectment issued from the court and his statement proving his diary regarding it can not be believed as he had no authority and no dakhalnama was executed and the entry in the daily diary appears to be concocted one. The amendment of no limitation against Gaon Sabha's land of 1976 is not applicable to such cases of non execution of decrees or orders within limitation and the courts below wrong applied it to the facts of the present case which is not at all applicable and the plaintiff became sirdar of the disputed land after final orders by both dismissing revision against order of Assistant Collector Ist Class. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside and this appeal is liable to be allowed.
31. The Board of Revenue has also referred the evidence of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3 who were the plaintiff and his close relatives, no independent witness was examined so far as possession is concerned. The Board of Revenue has believed said evidence, however, wrongly rejected the evidence of State i.e of Brijnath lekhpal who has placed the relevant documents such as CH form 41, 45 copy of delivery of possession dated 07.08.2014. However, the Board of Revenue in a very cursory manner without even referring said documents has disbelieved the statement of Lekhpal that there was no parwana of execution of the ejectment order. The findings returned by the Board of Revenue in second appeal are therefore perverse and therefore interfered.