IMPORTANT POINTS
Land in question held and occupied by the sugar factory for long time and being used for purpose of the factory vested in the government under Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971.
Section 3 is not limited in scope resulting in acquisition of only the leasehold interest in the land.
When the land in question is not agricultural land, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 will not be attracted.

JUDGMENT :

L. Nageswara Rao, J.

1. I.A. No.131233 of 2013 is an application for substitution filed by Gaurav Aseem Avtej which was allowed on 08.03.2018. The said application was filed on the ground that the first Plaintiff, Sh. Vinod Chandra Gupta died during the pendency of these appeals on 12.11.2010. He asserts his rights over the property in dispute on the basis of a sale deed executed on 29.11.2004 by the first Plaintiff, Sh. Vinod Chandra Gupta.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in Suit No.212 of 1981.

3. Suit No.212 of 1981 was filed before the learned Munsif, Bijnor by Sh. Vinod Chandra Gupta and his mother Smt. Prakashwati seeking eviction of the Defendant-Corporation and for recovery of the arrears of rent. The learned Munsif refused to decree the suit for eviction. However, the Defendant-Corporation was directed to pay Rs.1700/- towards arrears of rent for the period 1979-81. Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant-Corporation filed appeals against the judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Defendant-Corporation and allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and eviction was ordered. The second appeals filed by the Defendant-Corporation before the High Court challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court were allowed. The High Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeals are filed.

4. In the plaint it was averred that the first Plaintiff along with his father, Sh.Ram Narain Gupta, were bhumidars of an area admeasuring 4 bighas 3 biswas in Mauza Rashidpur, Garhi Pargana, Bijnor. According to them, the land was grove land. 3 bighas 8 biswas from the said land which is adjacent to M/s Shiv Prasad Banarasi Das Sugar Mills, Bijnor was given on lease for being used to park vehicles. It was averred that the lease was in existence for a considerably long period. As the period of the earlier lease expired in 1976, another lease deed was executed by the father of plaintiff No.1 on 25.06.1976 for a period of five years. It was stated in the plaint that the lease was determined by a notice dated 10.07.1979 and that the Defendant-Corporation was also in arrears of rent for the period 1979-1980. On the basis of the said pleadings, relief of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was sought. The Defendant-Corporation filed a written statement in which it was stated that the Plaintiffs have lost all rights in respect of the land as they could not have leased out agricultural land. It was also urged that the Plaintiffs cannot derive any benefit from the declaration made by the competent authority under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the 1950 Act) that the land was used for non agricultural purposes. The Defendant-Corporation submitted in the written statement that the land in dispute vested with the State Government by virtue of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (the 1971 Act) and Defendant No.1 became the title holder of the property after the scheduled undertaking was transferred to it. The Defendants further pleaded that they have made permanent construction on the land which was being used for the purpose of the factory and they had become permanent lessees. The Trial Court relied upon the order passed by the S.D.O. Bijnor under Section 143 of the 1950 Act on 20.01.1972 declaring that the land in dispute was not agricultural land. On the basis of the said order, the Trial Court held that the land was not agricultural land and the Plaintiffs had the right to lease out the land. The Trial Court found that the land did not vest in the State Government under the 1971 Act as, according to the Trial Court, only the leasehold interest in the land vested with the State Government. The Trial Court refused to grant a decree of evicti