D.C.M. SRI RAM INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in appeals No. 32 to 35 of 92-93, arising out of an order passed by the trial court on 22.9.93 in suits under Sec. 209 of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that D.C.M. Sri Ram Industries Ltd., Daurala Unit Sugar Works, Daurala, Meerut, instituted suits under Sec. 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Sec. 64 of U.P. Urban Z.A. and L.R. Act, for ejectment of Bhundey Ram, Dal Chandra, Harish Chandra and Tilak Ram, r/o village Datal, tahsil, pargana and district Meerut, from the plot No. 59/0-7-0 situate in aforementioned village. The plaintiff-appellant pleaded that the above said defendant-respondents occupied the said plot in an unauthorised manner since 1985 and on issuance of the notices to the said defendants, the written statements were preferred whereby the allegations and pleadings of the plaintiff-appellant were denied and it was stated that the defendant-respondents were in possession over the plot Nos. 35 and 36 situate in village Mustafabad Bukharpura, pargana, tahsil and district Meerut and the same were purchased by them by way of sale deed executed by Smt. Ealeei in favour of Smt. Nathoo who is stated to be the mother of the defendant-respondents. On the pleading of the parties as many as issues were framed in the matter. The parties were allowed to adduce their evidence in support of their claims. The trial court after evaluating and analysing the evidence advanced by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant, vide the order dated 22.9.93. Aggrieved by the above order, four first appeals were preferred before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut which has been heard and decided by one common order of the Additional Commissioner dated 19.1.1996 whereby the appeals preferred against the order dated 22.9.93 have been dismissed. Since four suits were preferred and they were decided by the trial court by one common order dated 22.9.93 and the first appeals have also been decided by one common order dated 19.1.98 because the points involved in all the suits are inter-related to each other. In the said circumstances the appeals preferred here are consolidated and they are being decided by a common order and the second appeal No. 46 of 95-96/Meerut shall be the leading file.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the relevant papers on file.