By the Court.—This is plaintiff’s appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) arising from judgment dated 8.4.2008 and decree dated 15.4.2008 passed by Sri Hetram, Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 163 of 2000 whereby Court below has dismissed the suit.

2. Plaintiff-appellant Subodh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) instituted aforesaid suit in Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bulandshahr vide plaint dated 23.2.2000 seeking a declaratory decree that he is owner of property situate at Bulandshahr City, and, shown in the map appended to plaint, as ABCD, and boundaries whereof are mentioned at the bottom of plaint. Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants/respondents to remove ‘malba’ of standing building at disputed land within the time as provided by Court, failing which Court should direct for removal of ‘malba’ from such agency as it deems fit, and, get disputed land vacated.

3. Plaint case set up by appellant is that Ram Sukh Das, son of Sri Moti Ram, a predecessor in interest of appellant was in possession of disputed property as ‘owner’, being a Revenue Free Grantee (‘maafi dawam’). Disputed land bears gata No. 980, area 10 bigha, 2 biswa under ‘Kari’ settlement. District Bulandshahr was formed in 1932. For maintaining law and order in District Bulandshahr, the then Government planned to construct a District Jail and on request of Government, Ramsukh Das, predecessor of appellant, permitted the then Government to construct District Jail and ‘Phansighar’ at disputed land. Consequently with permission of Ramsukh Das, a District Jail and ‘Phansighar’ was constructed on the land in dispute in 1835 and the then Government started use thereof. Permission was granted only for establishing District Jail and ‘Phansighar’ and not for any other purpose.

4. Gata No. 980 assigned in ‘Kari’ settlement, changed to gata Nos. 668, 669 and 670 in ‘Stoker’ settlement and it further changed to gata Nos. 775, 776 and 777 in ‘Philips’ settlement.

5. In 1858, when British Government acceded Indian territory by taking it over from East-India Company, the aforesaid conditions with respect to District Jail and ‘Phansighar’ continued and ownership of property in dispute continued with appellant’s predecessors, Ramsukh Das. In a letter dated 19th July, 1862, sent by Ramsukh Das to the then Collector, in respect to the aforesaid property, he said to have bequeathed disputed property to his grand son Mohan Lal, son of Jamuna Prasad. From Mohan Lal, property in dispute, was succeeded by Kali Charan who vide Will dated 7th June, 1976 made appellant, as sole owner thereof. Disputed property is not “Nazul” by any means in as much as it was not declared land acceded due to running away of its true owner or due to death of owners issue-less or otherwise. None of the owners of property in dispute revolted against Government and hence it was not a ‘Nazul’.

6. Kali Charan died on 9th October, 1976 and since then plaintiff-appellant is sole owner of disputed property in view of Will dated 7th June, 1976.

7. Government shifted District Jail to Village Chanderu, G.T. Road where a new District Jail has been constructed and possession thereof has also been taken by defendant/respondent 1. It has been completely transferred on 30.1.2000. Disputed property is not being used for the purpose of Jail since it has now been shifted to a new place. Therefore, purpose for which permission to use land in dispute was granted by Ramsukh Das has come to an end. Land in dispute has never been acquired nor requisitioned nor compensation thereof has ever been paid to appellant or any of his predecessor. Disputed property is owned and vested in appellant. He informed Collector and Jail Superintendent, Bulandshahr that now use and purpose for which disputed land was given to State has ceased, therefore, permission has also come to an end.