Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a plaintiff’s appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) arising from judgment and decree, dated 14.3.2016 and 26.3.2016, respectively, passed by Sri Pramod Kumar Singh-II, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mau, dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s Original Suit No. 164 of 1999.

2. Dispute relates to Araji No. 148/14, area 1 acre, and 366 kadi and Araji No. 167/4, area 200 kadi (hereinafter referred to as “disputed land”) situate at Village Sadatpura, Qasba, Pargana and Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau.

3. Plaintiff instituted aforesaid suit alleging that disputed land was acquired for public purpose of disposal of night soil, vide gazette notification of 1909 published under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) and was transferred to appellant. Land was never a Nazul land. In 1909, appellant was a notified “Town Area”. In 1953, elected body of appellant was not there. It was being managed by Administrator, i.e., District Magistrate, Azamgarh. The then Administrator executed a lease deed of disputed land in favour of Defendant-4, Brij Bihari Lal Tandon (later deceased and substituted by his legal heirs) for a period of 30 years. After expiry of period of lease appellant entered into possession of disputed land and since thereafter Defendant-Respondent-4 had no right title or interest in said property. However, with mischievous and mala fide intention, Defendant-Respondent-4, Brij Bihari Lal Tandon, instituted Original Suit No. 1725 of 1992 in the Court of Munsif, Mau, which is still pending (on the date when appellant filed original suit in question). Besides, Defendant-Respondent-4 involved Defendants-1 to 3 in his collusive act by requesting them to make land in question “Freehold” and submitted an application dated 11.10.1995 to District Magistrate, Mau for the said purpose. In the said application Defendant-Respondent-4 clearly stated that he was evicted from disputed land prior to 1992. Thus he was not entitled to get land in dispute, Freehold as it could have been done only in respect of those who were in possession of leased out Nazul land. Defendant-Respondents-1 to 3 however were working in collusion with Defendant-Respondent-4 and threatened appellant that they would make, disputed land, freehold. Defendants-Respondents-1 to 3 are Government officials and can evict appellant from disputed land at any point of time. Moreover, plaintiff-appellant filed Writ Petition No. 14729 of 1999 which was dismissed on 8.4.1999 on the ground of alternative remedy of getting declaration from a Civil Court. Defendant-Respondent-4 also raised some construction over disputed land which is illegal and contrary to terms of lease. He also also inducted Sales Tax Officer and Bhawani Shanker Tharad as sub-lessees on disputed land. Under the terms of lease, subletting being a violation of conditions of lease, has resulted in cessation of rights of Defendant-Respondent-4 to continue with lease rights over disputed property. Plaintiff-appellant repeatedly requested Respondents-1 to 3 not to take any action for making land in dispute “Freehold” in favour of Defendant-Respondent-4 but they were not listening and hence a notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon them and thereafter suit has been filed.

4. Defendant-Respondents-1 to 3 filed written statement disputing averments made by plaintiff-appellant in plaint and pleaded that appellant was neither owner nor in possession of disputed land. In Revenue records also there was no entry in respect of land in dispute in the name of plaintiff-appellant. Disputed land was never acquired for the purpose of night-soil as pleaded by plaintiff-appellant. As per Revenue record, ownership of disputed land is vested in State of U.P. and its management was in the hands of Municipal Board