STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HARISH CHANDRA
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. -
(1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 21, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur.
(2.)RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 Harish Chandra and Basant Kumar (lo be referred as 'the plaintiffs) filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants with the prayer that State of Rajasthan be directed not to interfere with their possession on two bighas and eight biswas of land and structures standing thereon, shown in the plan annexed to the plaint. A prayer was also made for a decree for possession of 16 bighas and 16 bigwas of land against the three appellants. The averments in the plaint were that the erstwhile State of Mewar, vide Mahakma Khas, Revene Department Order No. 20601 dated July 14, 1946 sanctioned the sale of 19 bighas and 14 biswas of land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint situated at village Sundervas, Tehsil Girva to Bhanwarlal father of the plaintiffs. Bbanwarlal paid 'Najul' tax amounting to Rs. 86.50 @ 4 1/2 per bigha for the land on September 4, 1946. Bhanwarlal was put in possession of the land. Alicence was granted to Bhanwarlal for putting on a Glass Factory at Sundervas. Bhanwarlal father of the plaintiffs and plaintiff Harish Chandra spent a huge amount for the construction of the buildings for the Glass Factory and labour quarters and purchasing machines and plants. Glass Factory was started in the year 1948 and continued up to 1957. Bhanwarlal suffered loss in the Glass Factory. He expired on January 17,1961. A notice dated March 29, 1968 was received by the plaintiff Harish Chandra on April 11, 1968 informing that the land allotted to his father Bhanwarlal had been resumed by the State Government because it was not used for the purpose for which it was given. Plaintiffs were asked to vacate the land and hand over the possession to the State Government Plaintiffs sent the reply that there was no breach of the terms of the agreement and the State Government was not entitled to take possession of the land. The plaintiffs sent notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice was also sent to U.I.T., Udaipur asking them not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land. Thereafter upon an application by the plaintiffs an agreement was entered into between them and the Collector and the U.I.T. which was subsequently approved by the State Government and communicated to the Collector vide letter dated April 21, 1971, and the plaintiffs were allowed to retain two bighas and 8 biswas of land on which building, structures and labour quarters were standing. They were to surrender 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land to the Housing Board, Udaipur which was given to them by the U.I.T. The plaintiffs surrendered that land in lieu of the compromise. On July 24, 1973 the Sub Divisional Officer Udaipur issued a notice to the plaintiff to vacate the premises etc. constructed on 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land also. On enquiry plaintiffs came to know that the State Government had set aside the order dated April 21, 1971 vide another Order dated March 29, 1972. It is this order dated March 29, 1972 which caused grievance to the plaintiffs and they filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the State Government not to disturb their peaceful enjoyment of the land and buildings standing on 2 bigbas and 8 biswas of land as stated earlier. They also sought a decree against the U.I.T. and Housing Board Udaipur for possession of 16 bighas &16 biswas of land on the ground that the State Government has gone back on the terms of the agreement under which plaintiffs had surrendered 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land. All the three appeallants contested the suit. The State Government came with a case that Bhanwarlal, father of the plaintiffs was allotted the land in question for the purpose of constructing the Glass Factory in the year 1946. That, the land was handed over to him. It was averred that Bhanwar Lal did not abide by the terms of the allotment and as the Glass Factory was not working the State Government had every right to resume the land It was also contended in the written statement that the Collector and the U.I.T. were not forced to enter into a compromise and if they had done so, it was not binding upon the State Government. That the land given by the U.I.T. to the Housing Society has been utilised for the construction of the houses in pursuance of the resumption order made by the State Government on July 26, 1955. On identical pleas, the U.I.T. also contested the suit. The Rajasthan Housing Board came with a case that 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land was given to them by the U.I.T. in the year 1971.
On the basis of the pleadings of the praties following 7 issues were struck out by the learned trial Judge:
(1) Whether plaintiffs Harishchandra and his father Shri Bhanwarlal spent huge sums on the construction of buildings, labour quarters for the factory and started manufacturing glass wares in the year 1948 and continued to do so till December 1957 and fulfilled the conditions of the grant and what is its effect on the same? (2) Whether the State Government has resumed the whole land allotted to the plaintiff on 26 -7 -55 and on 9 -9 -68 the possession of 17 bighas and 18 biswas land was taken by the State Government under the said order? (3) Whether the Chairman of the U.I.T. and the Collector were not acting on behalf of the State of Rajasthan in arriving at a compromise dated 21 -4 -71 with the plaintiffs and it is not binding on the defendants. No. 1, 2 and 3. (4) Whether the possession of only 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land was given by the plaintiff to the defendant under the terms of compromise? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to retain possession of entire 19 bighas and 4 bighas of land inspite of compromise on account of the defendant State cancelling their order dated 21 -4 -71? (6) Whether the suit against U.I.T. is not maintainable without a notice under Section 95 of the U.I.T. Act? (7) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to and in what manner.
(3.)PLAINTIFF Harish Chandra appreared in the witness box and examined three more witnesses. On behalf of the defendants -appellants 8 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge deciding various issues came to the conclusion that though Bhanwarlal had started the Glass Factory it did not continue to work after 1952, this was therefore, a breach of condition as it did not fulfill the condition by continuing the Glass Factory and contention of the plaintiffs that the factory continued to work after 1957 was not correct.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.