IMPORTANT POINT
In disputes over land title, interim injunctions are not maintainable if the title is highly disputed, necessitating resolution through comprehensive suits for declaration of title.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard S/Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava and R.K. Tiwari, learned A.C.S.C. along with Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for State-petitioners and S/Sri S.G. Hasnain and H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocates assisted by S/Sri Syed. Mohd. Fazal, Abhishek Tandon, Dhiraj Pandey, learned advocates for respondents in writ petition and S/Sri S.G. Hasnain and H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocates assisted by S/Sri Syed. Mohd. Fazal, Abhishek Tandon, Dhiraj Pandey, learned advocates for appellants and S/Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava and R.K. Tiwari, learned A.C.S.C. along with Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents in First Appeal From Order.

2. Above referred two cases are arising out of same land in dispute, therefore, with consent of learned advocates for rival parties, both cases are being decided by a common judgment.

3. State of U.P. has preferred Writ Petition No. 1633/2023 wherein an order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Revision No. 1640/2017 by Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow filed by three appellants/contesting respondents (out of them 2 have filed the connected FAFO No. 793/2024) is challenged. The details of land in dispute is described in both cases i.e. Khasra no. 385/1 and Khasra no. 319 situated in village Kaila, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District- Ghaziabad.

4. Appellants in FAFO (contesting respondents in writ petition) have claimed right over land in dispute on basis of their alleged very long possession and have entered into revenue records as non-occupancy tenants in Class 10-A whereas State has highly disputed their claim on the ground that land in dispute was allotted to their predecessors by way of a lease under Government Grants Act on 01.06.1954 which purportedly continued up to 30.09.1997 and thereafter State Government took a decision not to renew any lease.

5. Proceedings in writ petition were arisen in the year 2006 when on a complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate initiated the proceedings in Case No. 21/2005-06 under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short “Act of 1901”) and vide order dated 10.03.2006, name of appellants/contesting respondents were striked out as recorded in Class 10-A and it was directed to record that ^^feyfd;r ljdkj^^ i.e. property of Central Government. Relevant part thereof is quoted below -:

6. In aforesaid circumstances, Department of Headworks (Irrigation Department) filed an application in above referred case on 24.08.2007 that order dated 10.03.2006 be set aside and the case be restored for consideration of their stand and instead of land being of Central Government, name of State/Department be entered since appellants/contesting respondents have objected the construction work commenced by said Department.

7. Meanwhile, father of one of appellants/contesting respondents challenged the order dated 10.03.2006 passed by the S.D.M. on 12.08.2010 by way of a revision before Additional Commissioner, Meerut which was allowed vide order dated 12.08.2010 and matter was remitted back to S.D.M., Ghaziabad to decide it fresh. In pursuance of above order, application so filed by Irrigation Department was also heard. The S.D.M., Ghaziabad vide order dated 22.08.2016 not only rejected the impleadment application of Smt. Qamar Sultana but disposed of the case whereby land in dispute was again directed to be recorderd as ^^feyfd;r ljdkj^^. So far as application of Irrigation Department was concerned, it was rejected since no document in support of their claim was filed. Relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

8. Aforesaid order was thereafter challenged at the behest of appellants/contesting respondents by way of filing a revision petition before Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. Said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 01.05.2018 whereby impugned order therein dated 22.08.2016 was set aside and it was directed that name of appellants/contesting respondents in Class 10-A (non occupancy tenants) could not be expung