ZILA PARISHAD LUCKNOW Vs. RAM KHELAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed by the District Board, Lucknow, against the plaintiffs in various suits giving rise to these appeals. The plaintiffs had instituted different suits for an injunction to restrain the defendant, District Board, from removing the constructions in dispute and from prosecuting the plaintiffs for not removing the constructions in pursuance of the notice issued by the District Board under Section 95 of the U. P. District Boards Act. An injunction was also sought to restrain the defendant from issuing similar notices in future regarding the constructions in dispute.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs in each suit was that the constructions standing on the land in suit were about eight years old and were thus not liable to be removed under Section 95 of the U.P. District Boards Act. Their contention was that by reason of Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act the right of the District Board had been extinguished and accordingly the buildings could not be deemed to be encroachment on any land belonging to the District Board. The case of the defendant on the other hand was that the right of the District Board to remove the constructions still subsisted and the notice issued under Section 95 of the Act was a valid notice. According to the District Board, the constructions in dispute were encroachments on the public road and were liable to be removed. Other pleas taken in the case by the parties are not relevant for the present appeals.

(3.) THE only point to be determined in these appeals is whether the plaintiffs had acquired title by reason of Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to make the constructions immune from demolition or removal by the District Board under the U. P. District Boards Act. The appellate Court's finding about the length of possession having not been found to be specific by the learned Judge who had heard the appeals earlier, the following issue was remitted to the Court below for a finding: