STATE OF U P Vs. JAGDISH SARAN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Municipal Board Nagar Palika Lalitpur (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. Board). Both the writ petitions were directed against the order dated 11th February, 1994 passed by the District Judge, Lalitpur. By the said order learned District Judge allowed appeal No. 23 of 1992 filed by the respondent No. 1 Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and two others. State of U.P. and 27 others were parties. It was held in that order that the proceedings initiated by the State against Jagdish Sharan Agrawal and others under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short the Rs. Act) were barred by the principle of resjudicata, in view of the decision of the proceedings, which were initiated earlier by the Nagar Palika, Lalitpur, being suit No. 25 of 1960 as also in view of the dismissal of the proceedings which were initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh being case No. 521-353 under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 (in short the Rs. Eviction Act).

(3.) The stand of the State before the High Court was that the disputed land which is a Nazul property is owned by the State and is under the management of the Board. Nagar Palika has filed the Original Suit No. 25 of 1960 in the court of Munsif for permanent injunction against Savai Mahendra Maharaja Sri Devendra Singh Joodev for restraining him from auctioning the land being the property of the State. The said suit filed by the Nagar Palika was dismissed. The High Court noted that the judgment of the Trial Court was not brought on record and it was also not stated as to whether any appeal against the said judgment was filed or not. Thereafter, State of Uttar Pradesh initiated proceedings against the Maharaja under the Eviction Act which was numbered as DES Case No. 521 of 1970 before the prescribed authority.