VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ, petition, the petitioner has sought the relief restraining the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 from interfering with his possession over the disputed land. Further, it has been prayed that the order dated 5. 7. 1997 passed by the respondent No. 3 be treated as non-est and assess the cost of construction demolished by the respondents and pay damages to the petitioner.

(2.) WE have heard Shri R. C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalji Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) IT appears from the record that the petitioner purchased a piece of land from the respondent No. 4 Mohd. Haneef through a sale deed dated 13. 8. 1993, a photo copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondents No. 1 to 3 claimed this land to be their own. Mohd. Hanif had filed a suit in the year 1992 before the Civil Judge (S. D.), Allahabad bearing Original suit No. 29 of 1992 against the respondents No. 1 to 3 and that suit was decreed ex-parte on 15. 9. 1993. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted below:-