FAROOQI BEGUM (D) Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has assailed the correctness of Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2006 passed by the Single Judge, Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 813 of 1975 between Farooqi Begum vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby the Second Appeal was dismissed giving rise to the present appeal.

(2.) The State of U.P. through Collector, Rampur, instituted a suit for declaration, possession and damages before the Court of District Judge, Rampur, registered as Original Suit No.1 of 1964, State of U.P. vs. Smt. Farooqi Begum with respect to land in suit measuring 20 bighas 10 biswa (pukhta) situated in Village Thotar, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur, that it was a government grove (known as Bagh Hazoor Pasand) and presently belonging to the U.P. State Garden Department, Rampur.

(3.) According to the plaint averments, the said grove was rent free grant of the defendant long before the merger of Rampur State and like other Muafis; it was granted by His Highness Nawab Hamid Ali Khan to his different wives and was liable to resumption at the pleasure of the ruler of erstwhile Rampur State; after the death of Nawab Hamid Ali Khan in 1930, his successor Nawab Raza Ali Khan resumed all the Muafis of all the widows of his father including that of the defendant; the possession of the same was taken over by the State Authorities soon after the resumption; the same was given effect to in the revenue papers and the grove concerned came to be recorded in the name of the State (Shamil Khalasa); the defendant and her Karpoons through collusion of the revenue officers managed to get her name continued in the Patwaris record even though her possession had been removed; the grove in question along with similarly resumed grove came into the hands of the State of U.P. at the time of merger; ever since the State has been selling its Bahar; the defendant on the basis of continuance of her name, though illegally, continued to interfere in the possession of the State even in 1959 claiming the grove in question in her ownership; the State of U.P. took legal steps to get the revenue records corrected by expunging the name of the defendant and for incorporating the name of the State but the revenue court declined such request of the State as such the necessity to file the suit arose.