IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that ownership and possession can be established through valid sale-deeds and corroborating evidence, even against claims of unsettled land.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The present first appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014, passed in Original Suit No. 326 of 2008, Shri Vimal Kumar Poddar and Another (“plaintiffs”) vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another (“defendants”), by the court of First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar (“the suit”). By the impugned decree, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of ownership of the disputed property. [land khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246m, admeasuring 07 Bigha, 12 Bishwa Kham i.e. 1.21 Acre, situated in Village Sekhupura alias Khankhal, Pargana and Tehsil Haridwar within the limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar. In its East, pathway and land of Smt. Aaradhana Jhunjhunwala; in the West river Ganges; in the North, pathway and in the South, land of Smt. Aaradhana Jhunjhunwala and land Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246m, admeasuring 09 Bigha Kham i.e. 1.5 Acre, situated in Village Sekhupura alias Kankhal, Pargana and Tehsil Haridwar within the municipal limits of Haridwar. In its East, Uma Maheshwar Trust; in its West river Ganges; in the North, land of the seller and in the South, Uma Maheshwar Trust.] The plaintiffs have also sought permanent injunction.

4. According to the plaintiffs the land Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246(m) is non-ZA land, situated in Village Sekhupura alias Kankhal, Tehsil and District Haridwar. Its total area is 35 Bidha, 07 Bishwa and 13 Biswansi pacca. This land is recorded in the revenue record in the names of Zamindar and Khewatdar, as owners. There are many owners of this land, who are in possession of their respective shares in the property. Out of this Khewat No. 53, a certain portion was purchased by Uma Maheshwar Trust and the name of the Trust was recorded in the revenue record. Subsequently, there were some defects in the map. For its correction, Uma Maheshwar Trust did file a revenue suit, which was allowed and the map was corrected.

5. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased disputed property, which is a part of Khewat No. 53, by two sale-deeds dated 29.12.2005 and 21.08.2006. It was purchased from the Khewatdar. The respondents have no rights, whatsoever in the disputed property, but notices were given by the defendants claiming the disputed property as their own, which was duly replied by the plaintiffs. With these and other allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their ownership over the disputed property as well as they sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed property.

6. The defendants filed Written Statement and replied the claim of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendants that Khewat No. 53 is recorded in the name of river Ganges by deleting the name of Ram Kishan, Vishnu Prasad and others. It has been the claim of the defendants that the disputed property is within the control of State Government and the plaintiffs or their predecessors have no concerned with the disputed property; the disputed property is the part of the riverbed, which is non-ZA property, which could not be included into the settlement. It is reserved for Khumbh Mela.

7. It has been the case of the defendants that out of Khasra No. 246, 05 Bigha, 03 Bishwa land is used for Mayapur Escape Channel and the remaining land of Khasra No. 246(m) lies in the West of Channel, whereas the plaintiffs wrongly claimed the disputed property as part of Khasra No. 246(m). Objections with regard to the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (“the Act”) and other defences were also taken by the defendants.

8. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed in the suit:

(1