- (1.) This is a Defendant's second appeal arising out of suit filed by Plaintiff Respondents for injunction with an allegation that there was some land to the south of Kundan Sugar Mill Amroha which was agriculture land and same did not vest in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation under the provision of U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act 1971 (U.P. Act No. 22 of 1971).
(2.) Defendant-Appellant contested the suit on the ground that Plaintiff did not give Khasra number and he has not complied with the provision of Order 7 that the land claimed by Plaintiff was not agriculture land but was a part of the mill which was acquired under the provision of Act No. 23 of 1971. Plaintiff being not in possession, suit itself is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 22.5.1989 decreed the suit and appeal filed by Appellant has been dismissed vide its order dated 28.11.1992.
(3.) Sri Anil Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for Appellant has submitted that land in question was not agriculture and vested in U.P. State Sugar Corporation, therefore, in view of provision of undertaking, land is recorded as 'Abadi' in the Khatuni of 1372 fasli and 1380 fasli and in the Khatuni, land in question is recorded as Kundan Sugar Mill, therefore, suit itself is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that suit for injunction is not maintainable unless and until identity of the property in dispute is disclosed. From the allegation made in the plaint, he has simply given the boundary in the plaint and has not described that which is the property in dispute for which he sought injunction, therefore, no injunction could have been granted. Plaintiff's case was that it is an agriculture land and did not vest in the State Sugar Corporation but in the plaint it does not disclose or in the statement that plots which were claimed are as agriculture. Plaintiff Respondent filed an extract of Khasra of 1378 fasli which was purported to have issued by Lekhpal in the year 1981. The original Khasra was in the record room. He did not filed any certified copy of the Khasra of 1378 fasli corresponding to the year 1971. Only on the basis of this Khasra, the Appellate Court has held that Khasra indicates that it is an agriculture land. Appellant has filed certified copy of Khasra which is the most material evidence which goes to the root of the case that land in question which is being claimed by Plaintiff-Respondent was recorded as abadi and it was not an agriculture land and in view of Section 3-B and 2 (h) of Act No. 23 of 1971, land in question was a part of "schedule undertaking" and it vested in the sugar corporation. Learned Counsel for Appellant has brought to the notice of the Court Section 2(h)(vi) which provides as under: all lands (other than lands held or occupied for purposes of cultivation and grove lands) and buildings held or occupied for purposes of that factory (including buildings pertaining to any of the properties and assets hereinbefore specified, and guest houses and residences of directors, managerial personnel, staff and workmen or of any other person as lessee or licensee, and any store houses, molasses, tanks, roads, bridges, drains, culverts, tube-wells, water storage or distribution system and other civil engineering works) including any leasehold interest therein;;