RAM SWARUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 19-9-1998 passed to Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1991 by the Court of Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Bijnor whereby the appeal filed by the defendant/respondent has been allowed and the Judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside. Relief sought in this second appeal is that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court may be set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court be restored. This appeal was admitted on 27-3-1999 on the substantial question of law as to "whether the lower appellate Court has reversed t'he finding of the trial Court on no basis".

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a Suit No. 235 of 1984 seeking injunction and ejectment of the defendant (State of U.P.) from the land in dispute. The plaintiffs case was that plot No. 63 area three Bigha seven biswa situate at village Meerapur Raza Pargana, Tehsil and District Bijnor belonged to one Sri Nurul Hasan and it was situated within the area of Nagar Palika, Bijnor. By a registered sale deed dated 26-8-1961 the said Nurul Hasan sold an area of 907 sq. yard from the said plot to Sri Prakash Chandra Munish. The purchaser made certain constructions on the said plot purchased by him. By notification dated 17-12-1962 under the Land Acquisition Act, State of U.P. acquired an area of three Bigha, two Biswa of plot No. 63 for the purpose of construction of police station. The area purchased by Prakash Chandra Munish was not included in the acquisition and no compensation whatsoever was paid to Prakash Chandra Munish. It is alleged that Prakash Chandra Munish continued to be in possession of the area purchased by him and in the meantime defendants took possession on 9-2-1963 and constructed buildings of police station on an area of 3 Bigha 2 Biswa in plot No. 63 which was acquired by them. The said acquisition is said to have taken place on 17-12-1962 which was after the sale deed dated 26-8-1961 executed by Nurul Hasan in favour of Prakash Chandra Munish. By another sale deed dated 23-10-1974 Prakash Chandra Munish transferred the land in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that they came into possession of the land and its construction from the said date. It is the case of the plaintiffs that due to some error/mistake the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the Kotwali in 1379F. It is alleged that from 1333F, the entire area of 3 Bigha 7 Biswa of plot No. 63 was recorded in the name of Nurul Hasan son of Bahadur All but after 3 Bigha 2 Biswa of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State the name of Nurul Hasan was deleted and police station, Kotwali was entered in the revenue record over the area of 3 Bigha, 2 Biswa. However in 1379F, the revenue record erroneously showed the name of police station, Kotwali over the area of 3 Bigha 7 Biswa.

(3.) The plaintiffs alleged that upon discovering the said mistake in the Khatauni of 1379F, the plaintiffs filed a case No. 16 of 1983 under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act before the competent authority and after obtaining report paper No. Ga-91 of Tehsildar the Authority by order dated 4-3-1983 corrected the said mistake and the police station, Kotwali was entered in the Khatauni over an area of 3 Bigha 2 Biswa in plot No. 63. The rest of the area of plot was recorded as abadi. Subsequently in 1391 F, same entries are continuing wherein plot No. 63/1 area 5 Biswa was shown as abadi and plot No. 63/2 area 3 Bigha 2 Biswa was shown in the name of police station, Kotwali. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they started certain constructions over the plot from the year 1982. In June 1984, the police personnel forcibly occupied the Kothari belonging to the plaintiff situate over a portion of land purchased by the plaintiffs from Prakash Chandra Munish. The possession was resisted. However, when the police personnel did not vacate the premises, plaintiffs were compelled to file the present suit.