Court No. - 4 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 56 of 2013 Appellant :- Shobh Nath Respondent :- Raj Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Pratap Singh,Arun Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Salik Ram Yadav,Salik Ram Yadav Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri Salik Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decrees have been passed without considering pleadings, evidence and material on record. The plaintiff-appellant had filed the copy of the patta before the trial court, which is recorded in the impugned judgment and decree in the list of documents filed by the plaintiff-appellant, but the same has not been considered by the court below. He further submits that the courts below have also not found respondents owner and in possession of the land in dispute and even then the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have passed the impugned judgment and decrees in accordance with law after considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record. He further submits that any weakness of the case of the defendant-respondents cannot be a ground for decreeing the suit in absence of proof. Thus, the impugned judgment and decrees do not suffer from any illegality or error. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below and material placed on record of this appeal. 5. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that he is owner and in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of residential patta given by the Gram Sabha could not be proved and the patta was not placed on record. Only receipt of deposit of Rs. 15/- was filed to show that the patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The suit was filed on the basis of power of attorney. However, the plaintiff appeared himself as P.W. 3 and admitted in his evidence that he has no other document in regard to the land in dispute except the receipt of patta. If the patta was received by his father, then it would be with him. He further stated that after issuance of the receipt, the Gram Pradhan had asked to the plaintiff-appellant to plant the trees and he had also made construction on the land in dispute. However, the commission report as recorded in the impugned judgment and decrees records that there was no such construction on the land in dispute. 6. The learned lower appellate court has also recorded a finding that Section 122C of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides for allotment of patta in accordance with law. The patta can be granted by the Goan Sabha after proposal in its meeting and approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, a certificate to this effect is issued in favour of the allottee under the Act and Rule 115 (3) in format 49 (cha) but no such certificate has been filed and proved. 7. So far as the plea of learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant that the courts below have also not found the defendant-respondents owner and in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant should have been decreed, it is settled law that the weakness of the case of defendant-respondents cannot be a ground for allowing the suit of the plaintiff unless proved. 8. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the courts below, which may call for any interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 9. In case, the defendant-respondents are also not owner and in possession of the land in dispute, it is for the State to look into the matter and take appropriate steps. However, the appeal is misconceived and lacks merit as learned courts below have passed the impugned judgment and decrees after considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record and the same does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at admission stage. No order as to costs. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned District Magistrate by Senior Registrar of this Court forthwith. Order Date :- 21.1.2025/Raj Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench