STATE OF U P Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard standing counsel for the plaintiff appellant, Sri K. K. Arora appearing for the defendant-respondents and perused the record.

(2.) Standing counsel appearing for the appellant submits that plaintiffs appellant-State of U.P. filed a suit in respect of certain constructions and it was alleged that the constructions aforesaid constituted quarter No. 10 and form part of gata No. 57 measuring 0.490, situate in qasba Moradabad and that the property aforesaid was owned by the State of U.P. through Collector, Moradabad and was under the management of the Collector. It was further alleged that the defendants were trying to take possession of the aforesaid house and hence a decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants from illegally trespassing quarter No. 10 forming part of gata No. 57 and be further restrained from demolishing it or causing any damage thereto or taking illegal possession thereof.

(3.) He submits that the suit aforesaid was contested by the defendants, who filed their written statement and asserted that the constructions in question did not constitute quarter No. 10 nor did it form part of gata No. 57 and instead it formed part of gata No. 56, a part whereof was recorded as "abadi janta". It was stated that 0.008 hectares of land forming part of khasra No. 56 was recorded as "abadi janta" in the revenue records and the disputed construction was the said "abadi janta" which measures 82.17 sq. meters (approximately 0.008 hectares). It was also stated that the aforesaid house initially belonged to one Sri S. D. Singh who was Father (in a Church). He had executed a Will dated 20.1.1968 in favour of his daughter Smt. Kamla Negi. Apprehending her eviction by the State, Smt. Kamla Negi had preferred Original Suit No. 705 of 1992 praying for a decree of injunction to restrain the respondent State not to cause any interference in her possession. The suit aforesaid namely Original Suit No. 705 of 1992 was initially contested by the State which had filed written statement also but later on allowed the proceedings to continue ex-parte against them and that the suit aforesaid was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1997. It may also be mentioned here that although the suit aforesaid was decreed on 26.1.1997, an application for restoration of the aforesaid ex-parte decree has been made in the year 2003. However, no efforts whatsoever have been made to get the suit aforesaid restored. The restoration application is pending till date.