PRAG DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) By means of the present appeal, the appellants are challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad dated 15.1.2013 by which he has remanded back the matter to the trial court to decide the suit no. 90 of 1988 afresh.

(3.) The appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit. They have filed the suit, being suit no. 90 of 1988 for possession over the suit property being land of Khasra plot no. 349 having area .28 acre situated at Mehrabad, Tehsil Sikohabad presently in district Firozabad. The suit was filed with the assertion that the predecessor Sri Vishwamitra was the Zamindar whose name was duly recorded in the Khewat as being Zamindar. Since the land of Mehrabad fell within the municipal limit of the Municipal Board, Shikohabad much before the date appointed within the meaning of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the right title of the predecessor of the plaintiffs/appellants as being Zamindar is being protected. Since the said land of said plot was/is being used for the purposes other than agricultural purposes hence the provisions of U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has no application in relation to the said land. In the month of March, 1984, the officials of the respondent no. 1 in the garb of raising construction of boundary wall over the Railway land encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs/appellants without any right title and authority. The request made by the plaintiffs/appellants to remove their unauthorized occupation has not been taken notice and when they did not receive any response, filed the suit. The suit has been contested by the respondent, issues were framed and evidences have been adduced and after hearing both the parties by the judgment and order dated 26.3.2007, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the respondent filed an appeal, being appeal no. 16 of 2007. By the impugned order, the appeal has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back.