Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3817
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Kanpur Nagar and 5 others - Respondent
Writ C. No. 35271 of 2016
Decided On : 05-10-2016
For the Petitioner:- Diptiman Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- C.S.C., Anil Babu and Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not determine the title of the parties and are subject to final orders in regular title proceedings.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Disputed Possession - U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 41, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 143 - [Section 41, Section 143] - The court discussed the disputed possession of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the demarcation order under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, and the implications of the dismissal of a suit for injunction under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The court emphasized that proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not determine the title of the parties and are subject to final orders in regular title proceedings. The court also highlighted that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not competent to pass an order overriding the decision of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the possession of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, with conflicting claims regarding the extent of the acquired land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed possession and demarcation order under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were not determinative of the parties' title, and the dismissal of a suit for injunction under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had implications for the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disputed possession of the acquired land, the validity of the demarcation order, and the implications of the dismissal of the suit for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not determine the title of the parties and are subject to final orders in regular title proceedings. The court also highlighted the limitations on the authority of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to override the decision of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was quashed.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
Heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Diptiman Singh for the petitioner, Shri Anil Babu for the respondent no. 3, Shri Anil Kumar Mishra for the respondent no. 5, Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and is directed against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 02.07.2016 directing demarcation after accepting the reports dated 02.03.2016 of the Revenue Inspector forwarded by the Tehsildar, Sadar on 16.03.2016.
3. Relevant facts briefly stated are that the respondents claim on the basis of a sale deed allegedly executed in their favour by the respondent no. 6. The date of this sale deed is not available on record.
4. Plot No. 90 situated in Village Ahirwan, Kanpur Nagar was acquired for the benefit of the petitioner. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 31.10.1964. After notification under Section 6 etc., possession over the land acquired had been taken on 20.12.1965. The possession certificate in this regard has been filed on record as Annexure 4. Perusal of this possession certificate reveals that possession of 12 Bigha 7 Biswa of plot no. 90M was taken.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact plot No. 90, had been acquired as a whole but since in the possession certificate, plot no. 90M has been mentioned, the same has given rise to the present dispute.
6. The submission that the entire area of plot No. 90 has been acquired, is according to the petitioner, corroborated by the objection filed by the Ajit Kumar and Udai Narain against the acquisition. In this objection they have referred to plot No. 90 and there is no reference or mention of plot no. 90M and therein compensation regarding the entire 12 Bigha 7 Biswa of plot No. 90 was claimed by the objectors.
7. The S.L.A.O. passed the award, copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This award is dated 28.02.1970. Even in the award there is only mention of plot No. 90 and not 90M.
8. After the land was handed over to the petitioner, a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was granted on 15.07.1993.
9. In the year 1994, Ajit Kumar filed suit No. 154 for permanent injunction against the petitioner. Even in this suit, the injunction was claimed with regard to plot No. 90 and only 4 Bighas thereof. In this plaint, for the first time, it was alleged that the total area of plot no. 90 was 18 Bigha 3 Biswa; that 2 Bigha 8 Biswa was railway line and airport.
10. In this suit, an interim injunction was granted directing the petitioner to release 2 Bigha land in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents in the writ petition.
11. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 34160 of 2001. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.05.2005, copy whereof is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. The relevant portion of this judgment is quoted herein below: -
"3. The contesting respondents have filed a suit for injunction. In this suit the relief of declaration is inherent. The plaint allegations are that the property was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act unless and until the court comes to the conclusion that the property was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it can not be released in favour of the contesting respondents. The respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to release two Bighas of land. The order dated 12.3.2001 is illegal and is hereby quashed. The Original Suit filed by the contesting respondents namely Original Suit No. 154/94 may be decided expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
4. With these observations the writ petition is allowed."
12. It is submitted that subsequently this suit was dismissed for default on 16.11.2015.
13. The s
