Reserved on 12.08.2021

Delivered on 06.09.2021

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 448 of 2019

Appellant :- Roop Chandra And 14 Others

Respondent :- Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Upadhyaya(Senior

Adv.), ,Chandan Sharma

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

1.

Heard Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

appellant; Shri Rajan Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent

no.1; Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2

and perused the lower court record.

2.

This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants

against judgement and decree dated 29.09.18 and 08.10.2018

respectively in Original Suit No.731 of 2005 passed by 7^th Additional

District Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad.

3.

The plaintiffs-appellants instituted a suit for permanent

injunction against defendants-respondents on the ground that they are

harijan by caste. Their ancestors, late Kashi S/o Baul was allotted

plot no. 14, area 10 Biswa situated in Mauza Chilla, Taluka

Sadiyabad Uprahar, Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad as bhumidhar

with transferable rights and after his death his sons, Kishori Lal, late

Raja Ram and late Dashai got recorded over the plot no.14 aforesaid.

The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of aforesaid late Kashi and Kishori

Lal, Ram Lal, Raja Ram and Dashai and in possession over the land

in dispute. Apart from the aforesaid 10 biswa of land, the name of

late Ram Lal is recorded over an area of 8 dhur on plot no.14. The

houses of the plaintiffs are situated on the main road on the plot in

dispute since more than 100 years. Their houses have been built after

investment of considerable amount of money and plaintiffs are living

with their families therein. Number of trees planted by them and

temple are also existing thereon. The defendant no.1 is a college

and defendant no.2 is a University, who want to extend their area and

are trying to take possession of the plaintiffs’ land without following

the procedure established by law. The temples of Lord Shiv and Lord

Hanuman are also situated over the land in dispute. The defendants

are threatening possession over the land in dispute by force and

hence the suit is being instituted.

4.

Defendant no.1 filed its written statement denying the plaint

allegations. It further stated that the land in dispute was acquired in

1972, which is in possession of the defendants. The plaintiffs or

their ancestors had no concern with the land in dispute. Plot no.14,

area 0.11 hectare or 10 Biswa in dispute was legally acquired by the

State Government and the plaintiffs are in illegal possession thereon.

2 of 11

The recorded owner of the property has been paid compensation and

was dispossessed. The ancestors of the plaintiffs after acquisition of

the land in dispute got their names mutated in collusion with the

concerned lekhpal, which was cancelled on 17.12.2010 in

proceedings under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act. The

plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the order aforesaid in Revision

before the Commissioner. The ancestors of the plaintiff also got

themselves mutated over the land in dispute but lost the mutation

cases. The plaintiffs have no concern with the land in dispute and

have illegally made constructions over the same. They are not in

possession over the land in dispute and have no locus to file the suit.

The suit is barred by Sections 34, 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief

Act and deserves to be dismissed.

5.

Defendant no.2 also filed a written statement with similar

pleadings. It claimed that its name is recorded in revenue record over

the land in dispute. The plaintiffs have forcibly occupied the land in

dispute. They have no right and title over the land in dispute and on

the basis of illegal possession they cannot institute the suit, which

deserves to be dismissed with costs.

6.

The trial court framed the following issues :-

(i) Whe