Briefly the facts are that companysolidation scheme in village Sanoth was prepared and companyfirmed in the year 1975 76 under Sections 19 and 20 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The respondents admittedly owned and possessed lands in the said village.
The name of his predecessor was found place as an unauthorized occupant in a list dated 3rd July, 1982 and therefore it is submitted that the rejection of the application of the appellant for being put in possession of land by the Consolidation Officer was wrong.
The Financial Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition against the said order on 4th March, 1994.
The claim is based on alleged occupation as a tresspaser of 10 biswas of agricultural land in village Sanoth within the revenue estate of Delhi.
The appellant challenged these orders of the revenue authorities in the High Court of Delhi by way of a Writ Petition bearing No.1488/94.
The appellant made an application on 16th February, 1993 for being put in possession of the 5 biswas of land to which he claimed to be entitled to an encumbrancer.
The Consolidation Officer however dismissed the application of the appellant vide order dated 10th November, 1993.
The Scheme of companysolidation and re partition had been companypleted by the year 1982.
In the scheme, numberencumbrance as alleged by the appellant was mentioned.
The record of companysolidation and re partition had been companysigned in the year 1982 after finalization of companysolidation proceedings.
The said petition was also dismissed in limine on 6th April, 1994 which has given rise to the present appeal.
J U D G M E N T WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The appellant claimed that his predecessor had trespassed on a portion of the land belonging to the respondents and had been carrying on cultivation activity thereon.
3633 of 1996 ARUN KUMAR, J. Civil Appeal No.
The appellant, however, relied on a list dated 3rd July, 1982 for substantiating his claim.
3632 of 1996 In this appeal, the appellant claims possession of a piece of land companyprising 5 biswas, that is, 250 square yards.
