Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajiv Sharma, Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ.
Nagar Nigam Lucknow -Appellant
Versus
Nagar Nigam Lucknow -Respondent
First Appeal No. 70 of 2013
Decided On : 24-02-2014
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Ownership Dispute - Sections 4, 6, 132, 30 of the Act - Sections 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act - Sections 68, 69 of the Indian Evidence Act - Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-Nagar Nigam, Lucknow appealed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favor of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 4, declaring them as the owner of disputed land. The appellant contended that the disputed land vested in the State under the provisions of Sections 4, 6, and 132 of the Act and the plaintiffs had no legal right to claim ownership based on an alleged unregistered sale deed dated 28.6.1940. The appellant also argued that the trial Court failed to determine the legal rights of the plaintiffs and that the alleged sale deed was not proved as per the Indian Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and the High Court affirmed the judgment, stating that the findings were based on cogent reasons and documentary evidence. The Court also held that the plaintiffs' adverse possession was established, and the land's recording as a pond in revenue records did not nullify their ownership. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the land vested in the State after the Zamindari abolition, as the land was purchased prior to the abolition and continued to belong to the purchaser and his legal heirs.
Issues: Ownership dispute over disputed land, validity of alleged unregistered sale deed, determination of legal rights of the plaintiffs, and the effect of Zamindari abolition on land ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiffs' adverse possession was established, and the land's recording as a pond in revenue records did not nullify their ownership. The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the land vested in the State after the Zamindari abolition, as the land was purchased prior to the abolition and continued to belong to the purchaser and his legal heirs.
Final Decision: The High Court affirmed the trial Court's judgment, dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the decree in favor of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Heard Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, Counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.E. Khan, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. Through the instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant-Nagar Nigam, Lucknow has assailed the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.22, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"], in Regular Suit No. 323 of 2004, whereby the trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 4 and declared that on the basis sale deed in question dated 28.6.1940 Paper No. 89-Ga (loss Paper No. 9Ga/2), the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the owner of land i.e. Khasra No. 1, measuring 30 bigha, 12 biswa, 4 biswansi situated at Village Farukkhabad Chillawan, Pargana Bijnour, Tehsil & District Lucknow.
3. Undisputed facts of the case are that the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Sri Bharat Singh, filed a suit for perpetual injunction and declaration before the trial Court, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 323 of 2004. Notices were issued. In response thereof, defendant No.4/appellant and defendant Nos. 1 and 2/respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have appeared and filed their written statements but from the side of defendant No.3/respondent No.7, no one has put in appearance and as such, the case was proceeded against him ex parte vide order dated 1.11.2010.
4. After exchange of pleadings, the trial Court framed issue Nos. 1 to 6 on 9.11.2010 and issue No. 7 on 12.1.2013. The issues are as under :
=HINDI MATTER
5. From the side of plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4, plaintiff No.1/3/respondent No.3 (Mahendra Pratap Singh) was produced as P.W.1, Shatrudhan Singh as P.W.2 and Shiv Kumar Maurya as P.W.3, whereas from the side of defendant No.4/appellant, Brij Nath Trivedi, Officiating Lekhpal, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, was produced as D.W.1.
6. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by the impugned decree.
7. Hence the instant appeal.
8. While assailing the impugned decree, Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, Counsel for the appellant has contended that prior to promulgation of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] and after implementation of the Act, the disputed land i.e. Khasra Plot No. 1, measuring 30 bigha, 12 biswa, 4 biswansi situated at Village Farukkhabad Chillawan, Pargana Bijnour, Tehsil & District Lucknow, was recorded as pond/talab in the revenue records and right from the date of vesting, the said pond/disputed land had vested in the State under the provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the Act and till date, the disputed land is recorded as Pond land.
9. While placing reliance upon Sections 4, 6 and 132 of the Act, Sri Mishra has contended that inspite of alleged sale deed dated 28.6.1940, all rights upon the pond land of intermediaries or a person, who is claiming the rights upon the pond land through the intermediaries ceases and the pond land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. Thus, the pond land (disputed land in this case) vests in the State of U.P. from the date of vesting (i.e. 1.7.1952) and the plaintiff-Bharat Singh and his successor (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) have got no legal right to claim declaration over the said land on the basis of alleged unregistered sale deed dated 28.6.1940 in view of the provisions of Section 4, 6 and 132 of the Act as well as Section 30 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.
10. Sri Mishra has contended that as per provisions of Section 117 of the Act, the disputed land was given to the Gaon Sabha and when the Gaon Sabha, Farukkhabad, Chillawan came under the limits of Nagar Nigam in the year 1987, then, the disputed land vested under the management of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow.
11. To strengthen the aforesaid su
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
