NIRAHU Vs. KAILASHPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 13 to 15. Looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, these two writ petitions arising out of the same proceedings and between the same parties are being disposed of without putting the private respondents to notice. However, their rights for clarification/modification/alteration of the order, in case they feel aggrieved, are being kept reserved.

(2.) Petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly filed a suit under section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. A preliminary decree was passed on 14.3.2005. No objection was filed and ultimately 'Qurras' were prepared and a final decree was passed on 15.3.2007. The decree was duly executed and accordingly entries were also made in the revenue record. After about a period of five years, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein who were co-plaintiffs along with petitioners filed an appeal challenging the preliminary decree on various grounds. The petitioners contested the appeals on the ground that they are barred by limitation and not maintainable at the behest of co-plaintiffs.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that without deciding the question of limitation and the maintainability of the appeal the Additional Commissioner wrongly passed an interim order restraining the petitioners from raising any construction over the land which came into their share. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Limited and others v. M/s. Mechano and another, 2002 46 AllLR 106