STATE OF U P Vs. MAHANT AVAIDH NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the land in dispute and obstructing him from appropriating the timber of the trees of the plots in suit. The dispute relates to 8 plots of village Chowk, Tappa Sonari, Pargana Tilpur, Tahsil Mahrajganj, district Gorakhpur.

(2.) PLAINTIFF's case was that there was a temple of Sri Gorakhnath in Gorakhpur, that the plaintiff was the Mahant of the temple, that the plots in dispute were groves planted by the temple in order to provide firewood for the maintenance of a perpetual fire (Akhand Dhuni) of Sri Gorakh Nath Ji and for use of every day Bhandara of Sadhus in the temple. The plaintiff-respondent claimed to be the Bhumidhar in possession of the plots in dispute. The Forest Department of the State, it was alleged illegally issued a notification declaring the said plots as Reserved Forest. PLAINTIFF's case was that the said plots did not constitute a forest. They were groves under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and could not be declared a reserved forest under the Forest Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 under the cover of a notification issued under the Forest Act was illegally interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the said plots. A notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served on the State Authorities recruiting them to abstain from interfering with the plaintiff's possession but to no effect, hence the suit.

(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit on the findings that though the plots were a grove and the plaintiff was a Bhumidhar thereof but since he was out of possession he could not claim a relief of injunction. It further held that though the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Forest Act and the notification declaring the plots as Reserved Forest was illegal but since the suit involved a declaration of the plaintiff's Bhumidhari title to the plots, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same. No decree accordingly could be granted in the plaintiff's favour.