Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Krishna Murari, Pratyush Kumar, JJ.
Santosh Anand and 4 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Kanpur Development Authority - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. - 1152 of 2014
Decided On : 06-04-2015
Land Acquisition Act - Dispute over property acquisition - Sections 24(2), 114(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sections 31, 7, 5A, 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for prohibitory injunction against the respondent, claiming ownership of the disputed property. The respondent contended that the property had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the appellants had no right to make alterations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to establish their ownership and the balance of convenience did not lie in their favor. The court rejected the application for temporary injunction, stating that the respondent had been put into possession of the property through a valid acquisition process.
Issues: Dispute over ownership and possession of the disputed property, validity of the acquisition process, and the right to seek injunction
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants had no locus to dispute the correctness of the land acquisition proceedings in a civil court. The court also emphasized the importance of producing sanctioned maps and establishing prima facie ownership in such disputes.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court clarified that its observations would not be binding on the court below when adjudging the merit of the rival contentions after the production of oral evidence.
(Pratyush Kumar, J.)
The present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiffs/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants') against defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') challenging the validity of the order dated 7.2.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit no.2396 of 2013, whereby application of the appellants for grant of interim injunction has been rejected.
2. Heard Shri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri J.N. Sharma learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
3. The facts involved in the present appeal are as follows: -
4. The appellants filed a suit for prohibitory injunction against the respondent on the allegations that the property in dispute was purchased by late Bhagat Ram Anand, predecessor in interest of the appellants from late Pyare Lal vide sale-deed dated 12.1.1955. Thereafter, property was developed. Residential and commercial buildings were raised thereat. On 26.11.2013 some persons came to the office of the respondent asked them not to alter or raise any construction situated thereat. Threat was also extended that constructions would be demolished and they would be evicted from the property in dispute, details whereof were given at the foot of the plaint.
5. Along with the plaint an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC supported by an affidavit of Shri Karnal Bhatia, power of attorney holder of the appellants had also been moved, whereby request has been made to restrain the respondent and its agents not to demolish the constructions of the appellants and further not to evict them or interfere with the peaceful use and occupation of the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.
6. On behalf of respondent before the court below, objection along with supporting affidavit was filed, wherein correctness of the pleadings of the appellants were denied and it was stated further that the property in dispute had been acquired for the respondent on 5.4.1957 under the provisions Land Acquisition Act. The constructions existing on the land in dispute were illegal and liable to be demolished. The appellants were not owners of the property in dispute. They had no right to make any alteration in the property in dispute. The appellants had no prima facie case, balance of convenience was not in their favour, since they were trespassers, they were not likely to suffer any irreparable loss.
7. Shri Karnal Bhatia, power of attorney holder of the appellants had filed rejoinder affidavit, whereby averments made in the counter affidavit were denied. It was specifically denied that the property in dispute had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to him neither any notification was published nor any award was made nor any possession was delivered to the respondent. The appellants were in possession of the property in dispute for more than 50 years. Their rights had been matured.
8. Learned Civil Judge after hearing the submissions of the parties vide order dated 7.2.2014 rejected the application for temporary injunction on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that house no.157 is situated in plot No.91. They also failed to produce any sanctioned map for the same. The property in dispute had been acquired and an Award No.54 dated 5.4.1957 was made. The respondent was put into possession of the same on 3.5.1956. Sale-deed executed in favour of the appellants' grandfather is null and void. No prima facie case in favour of the appellants is made out.
9. In support of the appellants' case, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants are owners in possession of the dispute since 1955. This fact has been established before the court below by cogent evidence which has been wrongly rejected.
10. The appellants have invested huge amount for construction of houses and shops, balance of convenience lies in t
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
