MURARI LAL Vs. RAMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5. 1. 52 passed by Shri Nand Lal Mathur, the District Judge of Alwar, affirming those of the Additional Munsif of Alwar dated 15th December, 1949.

(2.) THE dispute in this case relates to an area of 3 bighas and 18 bighas of land which formed part of a larger area of 35 Bighas 18 Biswas. It is not disputed that originally the whole of this area covering 35 bighas and 18 biswas was granted by the State of Alwar as Bhog Kharach for the temple of Shri Sita Ramji situated at village Ramgarh in favour of Haridas, the father of Murarilal, the defendant-appellant. In 192' the then Ruler of Alwar appears to have passed an order for resumption of all thess Muafi lands below 200 bighas. Accordingly the entire area was resumed; and in 1927, the disputed area of 3 bighas and 18 biswas was sold at auction, and purchased by the plaintiff on payment of Nazarana of Rs. 700/ -. Since then the plaintiff claims that he has been in possession of the land, and has made improvements thereon by planting trees and making other investments. Subsequently it appears that the then Ruler of Alwar directed by an order dated 22. 5. 33 that the Muafi lands should be restored to the Muafidars on the original terms (Ex. D. A.), and accordingly it appears that the rest of the area was restored to the defendant. So far as the area in the possession of the. plaintiff is concerned, which was sold to the plaintiff by the State authorities on payment of Nazarana, it appears that the Punya Department of the State in pursuance of the order of restoration took steps for taking possession of the disputed land from the plaintiff in order to give it back to the, Muafidar. THE plaintiff auction-purchaser naturally objected to the restoration of this area on the ground that he ad by virtue of his purchase acquired a vested right therein. His objection appears to have been overruled by the subordinate officers of the department, and finally his appeal to the Executive Council also failed on the 24th of January, 1946. THE plaintiff, therefore, instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the land in question. This suit was filed on the 5th of February, 1946. He claimed that he was the sole owner of the land and in possession thereof, and the defendant had no right to take possession of the same in pursuance of any order passed by the Executive Council, which was subject to the result of a civil litigation between the parties. In the alternative the plaintiff also prayed for a decree for recovery of the amount of Nazarana and for compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,400/- on account of improvements effected on the land in question.