LIYAKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that on 20.6.1976 a notice under the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act of 1976') was issued to one Fakir Chand. By order dated 6.2.1984, passed under Section 10(5) of Act of 1976, an area measuring 840.36 sq. meters of land of Fakir Chand was declared surplus. Then on 31.12.1985 the possession of the said surplus land measuring 840.36 sq. meters of Fakir Chand was taken by the State of U.P.

(3.) Thereafter, on the basis of an agreement dated 26.3.1974, said to have been executed by one Smt. Kaushalya Devi (wife of Fakir Chand), on 7.12.1990, the petitioner filed Original Suit No. 795 of 1990 in the court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur, for specific performance. Interestingly, said Smt. Kaushalya Devi (who is the wife of Fakir Chand, whose 840.36 sq. meters of land had been declared surplus), had entered into an agreement dated 26.3.1974, much prior to the coming into force of Act of 1976, which was with regard to the land of Fakir Chand which was subsequently declared surplus under the Act of 1976. The said agreement was not even registered. Further the Suit No. 795 of 1990 was filed 16 years after the alleged unregistered agreement was said to have been executed between the petitioner and said Smt. Kaushalya Devi (wife of Fakir Chand). The said suit was not contested by the defendant Smt. Kaushalya Devi and by judgment and Order dated 3.5.1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner. No issues were framed nor was the case discussed in the judgment and merely by mentioning that there is no opposition and that the evidence had been taken on affidavit, it was held that the suit deserves to be decreed and was accordingly decreed.