Hon’ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.—Shri Prem Chand, (deceased) through legal representatives, 1/1 Smt. Geeta, widow of late Prem Chand; 1/2 Rajesh Kumar, Son of late Prem Chand; and 1/3 Mukesh Kumar son of late Prem chand, the petitioners by this writ petition have prayed this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner or in any manner damaging or destroying the construction standing on the disputed plot and not to make further auction of the plot of the petitioner being plot No. 1824, W Block Keshav Nagar, Hameerpur Road, District Kanpur Nagar.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court raising a grievance that the respondents threatened to demolish the construction of the petitioner on the ground that land in dispute was acquired by Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur and award was made on 21.2.1946. The case set up by the petitioner is that his grand father was granted a lease in the year 1944 of plot No. 1824 area 6 Biswa by then Zamindar late Smt. Shiv Rani Puari through Ram Nath and a residential house was constructed on the said plot and since then they are residing. Further, in the year 1984 after getting threat of demolition of the construction of the petitioner by the then Regional Inspector Enforcement Department, he has filed an Original Suit No. 1137 of 1984 in the Court of Munsif Sadar, District Kanpur which was decided by judgment and decree dated 20.2.1995 passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar restraining the respondent not to interfere in possession of the petitioner against which a Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1995 (Kanpur Development Authority v. Prem Chand) was filed by the respondent in appellate Court which was dismissed in default vide order dated 4.12.1998 annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is pointed out that the respondent has not challenged the order dated 4.12.1998 before any competent forum and as such the order dated 4.12.1998 and trial Court’s order dated 20.2.1995 have attained finality meaning thereby the respondent has been restrained from any interference in the possession of the petitioner in disputed plot.

3. We have heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Rao for the petitioner and Sri Saroj Yadav for the Kanpur Development Authority.

4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s Arazi No. 1824 is neither acquired on 21.2.1946 nor the possession of said plot was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, Kanpur Development Board, Kanpur on 14.6.1946 nor by any other Authority. It is also urged that on 15.11.1944 the great grand father of the petitioner/Prem Chand was granted a lease of Arazi No. 1824 measuring its area 6 Biswa situated at Mauza Juhi Kalan, Mohal Dalip Chand Pargana, Tehsil and District Kanpur by the then Zamindar Smt. ShivRani widow of late Gajraj Singh through Ram Nath Singh who was authorized by the Zamindar to execute the said patta to him. Thereafter the grand father of the petitioner has constructed his house over the dispute Arazi and for the last fifty years his family members are residing therein. It is also submitted that the Civil Court has held that the petitioner was the owner of the disputed plot on the basis of the adverse possession, against which appeal filed by the Authority was also dismissed vide order dated 4.12.1998. Therefore, the decree of the Civil Court has attained finality.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, Kanpur Development Authority has submitted that it was merely an injunction suit and so far as the title and ownership is concerned, the same vests with Kanpur Development Authority in view of the acquisition notification, award and possession being taken over and compensation having paid to the then owner.

6. Main points for consideration are that whether the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1995 passed in Original Suit No. 1137 of 1984 with respect to the disputed land has attaine