LAWS(ALL)-2006-11-234

MAJID Vs. RAHMAT ULLAH

Decided On November 08, 2006
MAJID Appellant
V/S
RAHMAT ULLAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The plaintiff instituted a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. The plaintiff contended, that he was the owner and in possession of the ancestral house and the land appurtenant to it prior to the date of vesting and therefore the buildings, etc. was liable to be settled in his favour under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and that, the defendants had no right or title on the said land. The defendants, on the other hand, denied the ownership or the possession of the plaintiff over the land in question and further submitted that the Land Management Committee had issued a resolution dated 29.5.1977 allotting the land in their favour. It was urged that the allotment order issued by the Land Management Committee was valid and that they were entitled for the possession of the land.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, it transpires that the defendants took forceful possession of the land in question and raised certain constructions. Accordingly, an amendment application was filed which was allowed and a prayer in the plaint was incorporated, namely, for the removal/demolition of the construction so raised by the defendants over the property in question and for its possession.

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid decree, the execution proceedings were initiated. The judgment debtor filed an objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the land was not identifiable and that the land was left out for the purpose of a Harijan abadi during the consolidation proceedings and therefore, the land had vested with the Gaon Sabha. It was also urged that the allotment order had not been cancelled by any authority and therefore, the judgment debtors could not be dispossessed. The executing court rejected the objections of the judgment debtors by an order dated 26.2.2005. The revision of the judgment debtors was also dismissed by an order dated 4.10.2006. Consequently, the writ petition.