JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vimal Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as CPC), has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.1982 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge Kheri in Civil Appeal No.152/1980, by means of which the appeal has been dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1980 passed by the VIth Additional Munsif, Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Suit No.154/1977(Surjan Singh & 3 Ors. Versus Divisional Forest Officer, North Kheri).

3. The following substantial questions of law have been formulated in this appeal:-

“(a) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff bearing No.154/1977 seeking a decree of permanent injunction was maintainable on the facts as pleaded giving rise to any subsisting cause of action?

(b) Whether the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was maintainable especially when the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued in the year 1966 and 1970 respectively?

(c) Whether the decree passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 without impleading the Forest Department as a party instituted in the year 1973 whereas the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has already been issued in the year 1966 and 1970 respectively and in view thereof the suit was maintainable and the effect of a decree passed in such proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act,1927(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1927) was issued in regard to land, which includes the land in dispute, having area 31.60 acre on 05.01.1966 and published in the Gazette on 12.03.1966 and notification under Section 20 of the said Act was issued in regard to land having area 174.31 acre on 27.12.1970 and published in the Gazette on 11.04.1970, therefore the respondents had no right and title on the said land after the said date. He further submitted that the respondents had filed the suit for permanent injunction in the year 1977 claiming their rights on the land in dispute on the basis of the order passed in their favour under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950), which was filed and allowed after the aforesaid notifications, therefore the same was without jurisdiction, and no right or title could have been conferred on the respondents as the same was barred by Section 27 A of the Act of 1927 as per the State amendment of U.P. But without considering the aforesaid, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed, therefore the appellant had filed Civil Appeal, which has also been dismissed upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial court without considering the aforesaid facts and legal position.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the details of the boundaries of the land of the respondents was not given in the suit and the suit was filed by four persons but their shares were not mentioned, therefore the suit itself was not maintainable. Thus, the submission is that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well the first appellate court are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on State of U.P. versus Kamaljeet Singh;MANU/UP/2821/2017, State of U.P. Versus DDC & Ors.;MANU/SC/0612/1996; (1996)5 SCC 194, State of U.P. & Ors. Versus Sonelal & Ors.; MANU/UP/0151/2022, Sukhwant Singh versus Divisional Forest Officer & Ors.;MANU/PH/0435/2009, Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji versus Maniben Jagmalbhai;MANU/SC/0272/2022, Dhanraj vesus Vikram Singh & Others; Civil Appeal No.31