BADRI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. The dispute in the present appeal is with re gard to entitlement of plaintiff/appellants to receive compensation in respect of the land in dispute which is part of plot No. 59 situate in village Niardih, Pargana Kathihar, district Varanasi.

(2.) THE aforesaid plot of land having an area of 91 decimals was owned by Bacha Singh, Surya Prasad and Ram Bali Singh all sons of Sukhdeva Singh. THE plaintiff/appellants purchased the same from the aforesaid owners vide two regis tered sale deeds dated 19. 11. 1952 and 16. 6. 1953. THEy were also given posses sion of the said land and it is said that they were cultivating the same ever since then. However, their names were not mutated in the revenue records. In the mean time, part of the aforesaid land having an area of 33 decimal was acquired by the State of U. P. An award of Rs. 1033. 20 was made in the name of the previous owners as they continued to be recorded in the revenue record. THErefore, the plaintiff/appellants applied for receiving compensation, which was not permitted. In the aforesaid background they instituted original suit No. 422 of 1971 for per manent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-No. 1 and 2 i. e. the State of U. P. and Land Acquisition Officer from paying the aforesaid compensation to the contesting defendants No. 3 to 10 and for recovery of the said amount from the defendants. THE suit was decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 22. 12. 75 and the plaintiff/appellants were held to be true owners of the land in dispute, entitle to receive compensation as the previous owners had ceased to have any right in the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the lower Court civil appeal No. 16 of 1976 was preferred by the private contesting defendants. THE appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 10. 5. 77 on a technical ground that the suit itself was not maintainable as civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. THE decree passed by the lower Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff/appellants was dismissed. It is against the aforesaid judgment and order that the plaintiff/appellants preferred this sec ond appeal. THE appeal was admitted on the following question of law: "whether the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable despite the fact that the plaintiff was not a party to the land acquisition proceedings and had received no notice thereof. "

(3.) IN this case the position of the plaintiff/appellants is still better as they have purchased the land prior to the acquisition which appears to have taken place some time in the year 1971, though no actual date is on record. Therefore, the right of the plaintiff/appellants to receive compensation cannot be denied if they are held to be lawful owners.