FAROOQI BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashwath Sitaraman, Ms. Pragya Pandey, Mr. Mehul learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Rishi Kant, Standing Counsel and perused the record.

(2.) The facts of the case, as per the plaint averments are that 20 Bighas, 10 Biswas (Pukhta) of Bagh Huzoor Pasand situated in village- Thotar, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur was given as a grant to Farooqi Beguam, defendant-appellant, one of the begums of H.H. Nawab Hamid Ali Khan, Nawab of Rampur State, by a deed dtd. 17/4/1924. Similar grants were made in favour of other begums of Nawab. The said grants were resumable at pleasure and after death of Nawab Hamid Ali Khan in 1930, his successor Nawab Raza Ali Khan resumed all grants in favour of all widows of his father, including that in favour of Farooqi Begum. The possession was taken over by the State authorities and the same was duly recorded in the relevant papers and thus, the grove concerned stood recorded in the name of State (Shamil Khalasa). Farooqi Begum and her servants, through collusion with revenue officers, got her name entered in the Patwari's record, though, she was out of possession and an entry thereof was already effected in the register muafiat, specially maintained by erstwhile Rampur State for this purpose. The land ultimately got vested in State of U.P. at the time of merger and horticulture department of the State of U.P. has been selling its bahar. The defendant-appellant, on the basis of her name illegally entered in the revenue record, started interfering in the possession of the State and was claiming its ownership. The State of U.P. took steps for correction of the revenue records but it was declined on the ground that it is not possible in summary proceedings as it is a long standing entry. Thus, the State of U.P. filed the present suit for declaration that it is the owner of the disputed grove and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in its possession. It also claimed damages/mesne profit and in the alternate it prayed for possession, if it is found out of possession. Farooqi Begam, the sole defendant, filed written statement denying the plaint allegations, except that proceedings before the Revenue Court culminated in her favour and claimed that she is continuously in possession since 1924. She also claimed ownership prior to extension of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act) on the basis of deed of 1924. Further, after its extension to Rampur State she claimed to have acquired rights of a bhumidhar. She also claimed that proceedings for ejectment against Laddan Khan were initiated by her, and since State was a party, thus is barred by estoppel from filing the said suit. She also raised other formal pleas. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The appeal filed against the same was remanded for fresh trial by the appellate court, by order dtd. 8/9/1971, after allowing application to amend the written statement. The Trial Court again heard the suit and decreed the same on 1/5/1973. Civil Appeal filed against the same was dismissed by judgment dtd. 6/3/1975. Second Appeal No.813 of 1975 filed by the defendant-appellant before this Court was also dismissed by judgment dtd. 21/7/2006. Against the same an SLP was filed in Supreme Court which was granted and converted in Civil Appeal No.1534 of 2009, and finally the second appeal was remanded back to the High Court by the Supreme Court by its judgment dtd. 12/7/2022. Thus, the present second appeal is before this Court. Farooqi Begum expired during pendency of second appeal and her only daughter, who was substituted, also expired and now daughter's sons are appellants before this Court.

(3.) Ms. Nitya Ramkrishnan, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has raised three legal submissions before this Court for challenging the judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court. The same are:-