SANJEEV KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, Mr. Rahul Kumar Tyagi learned counsel for respondent No. 7, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 Nagar Nigam and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Swaroop S/o Buddhan was recorded as Bumidhar in respect to Khasra No. 59 area 0.3430 hectare (old Khasra No. 38) situated at village Noor Nagar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut. Swaroop had executed a sale deed in favour of Devan Singh on 11/6/1962 accordingly, the name of Devan Singh was recorded in the revenue record vide order dtd. 18/4/1967 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No. 2822 of 1967. An agreement to sale was executed by Devan Singh in favour of one Raj Bahadur and Smt. Shanti Devi on 20/1/1979. Shanti Devi and Raj Bahadur instituted a suit No. 456 of 1985 for specific performance of contract, which was decreed in favour of Shanti Devi and Raj Bahadur vide judgment decree dtd. 13/9/1988 the mobile fell on the ground and was broken and two such, mischief was caused not. Shanti Devi and Raj Bahadur accordingly filed a execution case in pursuance of judgment and decree dtd. 13/9/1988. Accordingly, a sale deed was executed on 16/1/1989 in the aforementioned execution case in favour of Shanti Devi and Raj Bahadur and possession was also delivered in favour of Shanti Devi and Raj Bahadur. Subsequently, name of Kishan Gopal, Jitendra Kumar, Nitin Kumar, Manish Kumar and Deepak Kumar were recorded in revenue record as Bhumidhar of Gata No. 59 on the basis of will deed. Subsequently, Kishan Gopal, Jitendra Kumar, Nitin Kumar and Manish Kumar executed the sale deed on 27/6/2013 in favour of Satish Sharma and Manoj Kumar Kaushik. Manoj Kumar Kaushik and Satish Sharma accordingly executed a sale deed on 7/10/2013 in favour of petitioners. According to the petitioner, name of petitioners were recorded in Nagar Nigam, Meerut for the purpose of payment of house tax etc. Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 filed a case under Sec. 134 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut, which was registered as Case No. 05419 of 2019 impleading the petitioners as opposite party in the case. Petitioners appeared in the aforementioned case and filed their objections. Sub-Divisional Officer vide Judgment and decree dtd. 30/4/2022/22/8/2022 dismissed the suit filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/4/2022/22/8/2022 respondent Nos. 6 to 9 filed an appeal under Sec. 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was registered as Appeal No1427 of 2022. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner and the same was allowed vide judgment dtd. 6/4/2023 setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 30/4/2022/ 22/8/2022 as well as decreed the plaintiffs' suit filed under Sec. 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Petitioners along with other co-sharer filed second appeal under Sec. 208 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before respondent No. 2/ Board of Revenue, which was registered as Second Appeal No. 1510 of 2023. The aforementioned Second Appeal was heard and the same was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 2/8/2023. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of petitioners challenging the order dtd. 6/4/2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut and order dtd. 2/8/2023 passed by Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 8/11/2023 directed the learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha to obtain instruction as to when the land in dispute has been vested in the territory of Municipal Corporation.