Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shyambhavi Nandan, Advocate for appellants and Smt. Durga Tiwari, Advocate for respondents.

2. All these appeals involve common substantial questions of law having arisen from a common judgment dated 23.12.1981 passed by Civil Judge, Deoria deciding Civil Appeals No. 43 of 1969, 44 of 1969, 45 of 1969, 46 of 1969, 47 of 1969, 48 of 1969, 49 of 1969, 51 of 1969, 53 of 1969, 62 of 1969 and 64 of 1969, hence, as agreed by learned counsels of the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Against the judgment impugned in these appeals Second Appeal No. 979 of 1982 has already been decided vide order dated 17.10.2012 on the basis of a compromise between the parties and, therefore, this Court is not concerned with that. This judgment shall not affect the aforesaid matter in any manner.

4. The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”), U.P. Gandhi Smarak Nidhi instituted suits against defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants”) seeking removal of constructions raised by them on the ground that same is unauthorized and illegal. The case set up by appellant is that it is a registered body. Araji No. 285, area 80 decimal and 284, area 32 decimal, situated at Mauja Kasya Tapa Mainpur, Pargana Sidhwa Jobna, District Deoria is a Nazul land belong to State. The land was leased out to Gandhi Mishan Prachar Samiti (hereinafter referred to as “GMPS”) vide lease deed dated 6.3.1954. After getting possession of the aforesaid land, GMPS handed it over to appellant, whereupon a building was raised on a part of the land and rest was left open. The defendants, sometimes in November, 1962 unauthorisedly occupied small segments of land raising Gumtis measuring about 20x20 Kadi. The act of defendants is wholly unauthorized, illegal. Complaint in this regard was also made to Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Collector concerned as well as State of U.P. and, thence, suits filed seeking dispossession of defendants from land in dispute.

5. The defendants contested the matter by filing written statement. The defence taken was almost common. It was stated that appellants have no concern with the land in dispute. The defendants are occupying and in possession of land in dispute for the last 62 years and throughout the land has been in their possession. They were paying land revenue to Zamindar. The State Government did not execute any lease in favour of appellant. Even if, any such deed was executed, the same is unauthorized and illegal. The Collector or anyone else has no authority for even managing the land in question. The possession of defendants is very old and open and, therefore, their title by satisfaction of period for adverse possession has matured. The suit is untenable. There existed a Dharamshala between Kutchery and Masjid. It was being managed by Zamindar. With permission of Zamindar the defendants constructed their shops on certain part of land and are running the same. The rent paid by defendants to Zamindar used to be spent for maintenance of Dharamshala. After independence, the people belong to Congress party forcibly occupied Dharamshala and demanded rent from defendants to which they did not agree and hence the suits have been filed. Under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1951”) the defendants have matured their rights under Sections 9 and 123 and the land has settled with them. The plaintiff in an illegal manner demolished Dharamshala and raised a new construction. Besides, on some part of land, M.L.A. of Congress has got certain quarters constructed. The suit is barred by time and also barred by principle of estoppels.

6. The Trial Court framed following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the lessee of the land in suit?

2. Whether the disputed construction lie in the land in suit?

3. Whether the lan