AGRA NAGAR MAHAPALIKA Vs. LEELA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the Agra Nagar Mahapalika for injunction restraining it from demolishing the plaintiff's shop and from interfering with their possession thereon in pursuance of the order of acquisition, or in pursuance of any order pursuant to or consequent thereon.

(2.) THE plaintiffs were six in number, and the appellant Nagar Mahapalika of the City of Agra was the sole defendant. The plaintiffs came to court with the allegations that a plot of land bearing Municipal no. 2705/2755, Hira Hussaini Chauraha, Agra, had been declared evacuee property under the pro­visions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act; that later on, in or about June 1955, it became part of the Compensation Pool under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954, and vested in the Central Government; that the plaintiffs are in occupation of portions of the said plot having entered the same as tenants on behalf of the Custodian, but now hold the same from the Central Government at varying rates of rent, which they had been regularly paying to the Managing Officer, Agra; that the plaintiffs were displaced persons from West Pakistan and were allotted their respective portions of the land by the Custodian, Agra; and with the permission of Asstt. Custodian they had raised permanent pucca constructions and have been carrying on business since about the year 1950 that being displaced persons, the plaintiffs were entitled to hold the land as allottees of different portions thereof, and are entitled to get the same transferr­ed in their favour under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilita­tion Act, their applications therefore being pending with the Central Govern­ment. It was then alleged that without any prior notice or information whatso­ever, either to the plaintiffs or to the Managing Officer of Acquired Evacuee Pro­perties at Agra, the defendant's men came to demolish the shops possessed by the plaintiffs, in or about the middle of the year 1963, saying that the property had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act; whereupon, the plaintiffs approached the Managing Officer, Agra, who moved the Land Acquisition Officer for not taking any action against them as the property vested in the Central Government and could not be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act; that the said objection of the Managing Officer was pending disposal with the Land Acquisition Officer, yet the defendant was trying to dis­possess the plaintiffs in hot haste, hence the suit. The plaintiff's claimed that the property vested in the Central Government, and the proceedings for acquisition of the same under the Land Acquisition Act, were illegal and ultra vires. The requirement of notice under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was sought to dispense with, on the ground that any delay would defeat the suit and the plaintiffs would be ruined in the meanwhile by demolition of their pucca constructions on which they had spent thousands of rupees.

(3.) IN the additional pleas, the defendant Nagar Mahapalika pleaded that the plaintiffs had no cause of action; that the land in suit was Government Nazul land which vested in State of Uttar Pradesh, and was originally under the management of Agra Improvement Trust and since February, 1960 it was under the management of the defendant-Nagar Mahapalika; that a portion of the said plot of land was leased out to one Haji Gul Mohammad and others for 30 years renewable upto 90 years under registered deeds of leases dated August 27, 1937 and October 27, 1946, for the purpose of residence; and that only the tenancy rights under the said leases could, if at all be declared evacuee property, or vest in the Custodian or the Central Government and the State Government continued to be the owner of the land. It was then pleaded that the Agra Improvement Trust framed a general improvement and rehous­ing scheme at Nala Mantola; that the land in suit was included in that Scheme; that notice of the said scheme, under Section 36 of the U. P. Town Improvement Act, was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 11th, 18th and 25th April, 1959, that notices under Section 38 of that Act were issued and served on the Assistant Custodian, Agra and also on the plaintiffs nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 as tenants and occupiers; that the objections of the Assistant Custodian were rejected by the Administrator, Agra Improvement Trust on 17.8.1959; that the said scheme was duly sanctioned by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on or about November 13, 1959 and notifications under Sections 42 (1) and 49 of that Act dated December 3, 1959, were duly published in the U. P. Gazette that the rights of the plaintiffs, if any, have been acquired by "the State Government" in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure; that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction either in law or in equity; that the suit was bad for want of a statutory notice under Section 571 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and was barred by section 52 of the Land Acquisition Act; that it was bad for misjoinder of causes of action and of parties that it was under-valued; that the State Government was a necessary party and the suit was not maintainable for not impleading it as a party. It may be here pointed out that the words "the State Government" were substitut­ed in place of the words "the defendant" in paragraph 23 of the written state­ment by amendment; and the last plea that the State Government was a necessary party and the suit was not maintainable for want of necessary party, was also added by the same amendment of the written statement which was allowed by the court's order dated January 13, 1965 on the defendant's applica­tion 63A. In the said application 63A, it is said that the land for Development Scheme is acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as modified by the provisions of U. P. Town Improvement Act or the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam; that the possession is taken by the Government which transfers the same to the Local Body or Company for whom the land is needed; that the said legal position had not been brought out correctly in the written statement and it was accordingly necessary to do so for the purposes of the disposal of the suit.