RADHEY SHYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 30/11/1995 passed by Additional district Judge, Gangapurcity in Appeal No. 5/1989 whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28/1/1989 passed by Munsif, Gangapurcity in Civil Suit no. 66/1977 by which the suit of plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) THE controversy involved in the present matter relates to jurisdiction in regard to maintainability of the suit which was filed by the plaintiff in relation to the disputed land. According to the plaintiff, he deposited 'nazrana' amount for the disputed land to the Municipal Board, Gangapurcity, obtained 'patta' and raised construction over some part of the disputed land and the remaining part was kept un-constructed by the plaintiff for the use as Chabutara on account of lack of funds but the defendants want to grab the disputed land and demolish the construction over the disputed land and to this effect the plaintiff submitted an application before the concerned revenue authorities and on scrutiny it was found that the said disputed land is recorded in khasra no. 17/3 situated in Mahukala and therefore the defendant has no relation whatsoever with the disputed land, while as per the defendant Union of India, the plaintiff is in unauthorized occupation of the disputed land which is railways land and the estate officer has initiated proceedings for evicting the plaintiff from the unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute and therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit in view of the bar provided under sections 10 and 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)Act, 1971 (hereinafter shall be referred as the Act of 1971 ).

(3.) THE Trial court framed the issues and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and thereafter the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against that judgment and decree was also dismissed by the first appellate court. Hence, this second appeal.