STATE OF U. P. now STATE OF UTTARANCHAL vs R. B. NARAIN SINGH SUGAR MILLS LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(UK) 264

2007 UAD 725
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal
First Appeal No. 15 of 2002
THE STATE OF U.P. now STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Appellants
Versus
R.B. NARAIN SINGH SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ORS. – Respondents
AND
First Appeal No. 09 of 2003
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
R.B. NARAIN SINGH SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 15.05.2007

Advocates:
For the Appellants : Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Learned Standing Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Alok Singh, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Sharad Sharma and Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned counsel

Headnote:(A) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1952 - Sec. 4 & 117 — Tese appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) whereby the suit of plaintiff/respondent was decreed for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants/appellants not to interfere and evict the plaintiff from the peaceful possession of the suit property — According to Sec. 117 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act — Since the land in question was being utilized as land appurtenant to the land of the mill from before the date of vesting — That land would not vest in the state — The easement right available to the Sugar Mill in respect of the plots in question would also not stand destroyed and would continue to be enjoyed by the Mill — That being so the property at no stage vested in the state — And therefore it could not, at any subsequent stage vest in the Gaon Sabha — The Court below have rightly decided the point in favour of respondent — It does not find any illegality and impropriety in the finding recorded by the Court below — And the same do not require interference of this Court — Appeal dismissed accordingly.
        (Paras 2, 18, 25)
       (B) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1952 - Sec. 229-B — According to appellant some part of the disputed land is used for agricultural purpose — Therefore the best way for the plaintiff/respondent was to file the suit before revenue court under the provision of Sec. 229-B U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act — The disputed land is an Abadi land and it is not being used as agricultural land — And also the plaintiff has not sought relief of declaration — Rather it has sought the relief of permanent injunction not to interfere in its peaceful possession over the disputed land — It is find that the trial Courts were well within their jurisdiction to decide the above issue in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. (Paras 20, 21)
       ¼v½ mRrj izns'k tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkw&lq/kkj vf/kfu;e] 1952 /kkjk 4 ,oa 117 & ;s vihysa flfoy tt ¼lhfu;j fMohtu½ ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ,oa fMdh ds fo#) nk;j gqbZ ftlds }kjk oknh@mRrjnkrk dk okn tks fd oknh }kjk dkfct Hkwfe ij] izfroknh@vihykFkhZ }kjk gLr{ksi u djus ,oa csn[kyh u djus ds fy;s LFkkbZ fu"ksèkkKk izkIr djus dk okn fMdh fd;k x;k & mRrj izns'k tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkw&lq/kkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 117 ds vuqlkj & iz'uxr Hkwfe ls tqM+h gqbZ Hkwfe dk bLrseky fey }kjk fufgr gksus ds fnukad ls iwoZ fd;k tk jgk Fkk & mijksDr Hkwfe dks jkT; esa fufgr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & phuh fey dks iz'uxr Hkw[k.M ij lokZfèkdkj ds vf/kdkj izkIr Fks] iz'uxr Hkw[k.Mksa dk iz;ksx fey }kjk yxkrkj fd;k vk jgk Fkk ftuesa fo?u ugha Mkyk tk ldrk & bl dkj.k bl izdkj dh Hkwfe dks dHkh Hkh jkT; esa fufgr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vkSj blh dkj.k mijksDr Hkwfe dks i'pkrorhZ n'kk esa xkao lHkk esa fufgr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & voj U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr fcUnq mRrjnkrk ds i{k esa lgh :i ls fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gS & blesa dgha Hkh dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ;k vukSfpR;rk utj ugha vkrh tks fd voj U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ gks & vkSj bl dkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk mlesa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ dkj.k nf'kZr ugha gksrk & vihysa rnkuqlkj fujLr dh tkrh gSA ¼izLrj 2] 18] 25½

       ¼c½ mRrj izns'k tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkw&lq/kkj vf/kfu;e] 1952 & /kkjk 229&ch & vihykFkhZ ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkwfe ds dqN Hkkx dk iz;ksx [ksrh ds fy;s fd;k tk jgk Fkk & bl dkj.k oknh@mRrjnkrk ds ikl lgh fodYi ;g Fkk fd og jktLo U;k;ky; esa /kkjk 229&ch mRrj izns'k tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkw&lq/kkj vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr okn ykrk & fookfnr Hkwfe vkcknh Hkwfe gS vkSj mldk iz;ksx [ksrh dh Hkwfe ds fy;s ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vkSj blds lkFk gh oknh }kjk ?kks"k.kk dk vuqrks"k ugha ekaxk x;k gS & tcfd mlus fookfnr Hkwfe ij vius 'kkfUriw.kZ dCts esa gLr{ksi u djus ds fy;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k ekaxk gS & vr% ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr okn fcUnq dk oknh@mRrjnkrk ds i{k esa fuf.kZr djus dk lgh {ks=kfèkdkj dk iz;ksx fd;k gSA ¼izLrj 20] 21½

JUDGMENT

Coram : Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.

Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.

The disputed property involved in both the above appeals belongs to the same and the one Sugar Factory at one site and similar controversies are involved in these cases, hence both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. F.A. No. 15/2002, arise out of the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2001, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar in O.S. No. 04 of 1992, R.B. Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants/appellants not to interfere and evict the plaintiff from the peaceful possession of the suit property.

3. F.A. No. 09/2003 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2003, passed by District Judge, Haridwar, in O.S. No. 03/1992, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed against the defendant/appellants.

4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff/respondent R.B. Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 now 1956, which was established in the year 1932-33 at Baraut, District Meerut (hereinafter referred as ‘the Mill’). The mill worked there till 1938-39 and it was shifted to and established at its present site at Laksar, District Haridwar in 1939. The Mill purchased land at the site and is the exclusive possession over there. In the year 1989 Laksar was notified in a Town Area and the Limits of Town Area were expanded covering the area of some adjoining villages including Simli and Khera. It was also alleged that Lord Krishna Sugar Mill also sold properties to the plaintiffs. Before the declaration of Town Area and disputed land had already vested in plaintiffs on the date of vesting by virtue of provisions of Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Due to the ignorance of plaintiffs the courts could not be moved for mutation in the year 1939. Thereafter, there were certain disputes with some persons about the properties and survey and inspections were made and it was detected that the name of plaintiff was not in the revenue records properly therefore in 1958 application for correction of records was moved. The application was allowed and the name of the plaintiff was entered in the register Malikan and Khasra Khautanis. In 1987 the Town Area filed suit no. 50 of 1987 in the court of Assistant Collector, Ist Class Haridwar on wrong allegations with regard to the disputed property. The said suit is still pending in Revision No. 5 of 1988-89 before the Board of Revenue and the proceedings of court below are stayed. Thereafter Haridwar was declared as District and Laksar was declared as one of the Tehsils. S.D.O. Laksar passed order dated 21-8-90 expunging the name of the plaintiff from the revenue record about the disputed property without issuing any notice to the plaintiffs and the said order was mutated in the name of Gram Sabha Simli. Against this order revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut who stayed the operation of the order dated 21-8-90 and the knowledge of the same was to the defendant.

5. The plaintiff-Mill preferred suit Nos. 3 of 1992 and 4 of 1992 before Civil Judge, Haridwar for the decree of permanent injunction against the defendants directing the defendants not to make any type of interference in the possession of the properties belonging to the plaintiffs given at the foot of the plaints either by disposing the plaintiffs or by making any construction over the properties or by acquiring or getting the property acquired or by claiming possessory title or otherwise title in any way directly or indirectly whatsoever.

6. The defendant State of U.P. and the Town Area filed joint written statement in both the suits and mainly pleaded that the disputed land comes within the definition of agriculture land and the suits are barred by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday