The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has a special status under the Constitution of India, and the general civil law would not be applicable over it. The determination of the nature of land exclusively falls within the domain of the Act, and the conditions for invoking Section 331A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act must be satisfied.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner, before this Court is a plaintiff in a Suit, which was instituted by him, before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, being Suit No. 443 of 2004, Radhey Shyam vs. R.P. Singh. In the plaint thus instituted by the present petitioner, he had modulated the nature of decree, which was being sought for from the learned Civil trial Court was in the following manner:-

(A) A decree for possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant there by directing the defendant to deliver the possession of the land marked by letters XYCB in the plan annexed to the plaint after removing his malba thee from within a time to be fixed by the learned court and on failure of the defendant to do so, the decree be got executed through the agency of the court of the cost of the defendant.

(B) A decree for recovery of Rs. 500.00 per month as damages for illegal use and occupation of the land marked by letters XXCB in the plan annexed to the plaint w.e.f. 12.08.2004 till the date of the deliver of the possession of the aforesaid land to the plaintiff be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(BB) A permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendant and all persons claiming through or under him from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the land marked by letters ABCD in the plan annexed to the plaint.

2. If the plaint averments in its totality, is taken into consideration, and in particular, in relation to the nature of property, which has been described at the foot of the plaint, it has described the disputed property as to be plot No. 15, over which, there exists certain constructions, which were alleged to have been raised by the Yamuna Valley Engineers Employees Housing Society, the precinct of which had been more appropriately described, in the details of the property, given therein, which is referred to hereunder:-

The aforesaid plot of the plaintiff has been marked by letters ABCD in the annexed plan and in the encroached portion which has been marked by letter XYCB in the annexed plan."

3. The peculiarity of the facts of the present case are that the property in dispute which was the subject matter and in relation to the nature of relief, which has been sought for hereinabove, the few facts, which are admitted by virtue of the pleadings on record are :-

(i) That the petitioner claims himself to be having a status of a bhumidhar being a tenure holder falling under Section 129 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

(ii) By virtue of the nature of relief sought for removal of the constructions and for the grant of decree of possession, the fact of the defendant being in possession is yet again an admitted fact, by virtue of the pleadings itself, by the plaintiff.

4. When the suit was instituted and the notices were issued to the respondents, they had filed their written statement and an additional written statement and on the exchange of pleadings, the learned trial Court has formulated the issues and one of the prime issue, which was the subject matter of determination was the issue of a bar of sustainability of the proceedings of suit before the Civil Court and consequently, issue Nos. 6 and 7 were formulated, as to whether the suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

5. In order to answer the said question, the learned trial Court, while considering the respective arguments based on the pleadings and the evidence, which were adduced before the Court below, had decided the issue pertaining to Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner herein, vide its judgment dated 05.11.2009, holding thereof that the suit would lie before the Civil Court and the bar of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, will not come into play.

6. The said judgment was put to challenge by the defendant/respondent in a Civil Revision being Civil Revision No. 89 of 2009, R.P. Singh vs. Radhey Shyam Sharma. The revisio