- (1.) Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents. This is an application to condone the delay of 11 years 92 days in filing the appeal. Before adverting to the facts as stated in the application for condonation of delay, it would be appropriate to notice in brief: the controversy which was involved in the suit giving rise to the appeal.
(2.) Suit No. 333 of 1993, Radhey Lal Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and others, was instituted for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling any part of the property i.e., property No. 28/647-45 situate in Loha Mandi District Agra, treating it as Nazul property. In the said suit, besides the State of U.P., Nagar Mahapalika were impleaded as defendants. The plaintiff came out with the case that the said property was earlier declared as evacuee property and was vested in the Central Government. The said property was sold under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 in favour of M/s. Quality Marked Footwear Manufacturer Association, Agra through President of India. It appears that the said purchaser was in arrears of public dues with the result the Collector, Agra auction sold the said property for recovery of arrears of land revenue by the order dated 15.11.1972 and was purchased by the present plaintiff. It was stated that the defendants are illegally treating the property in dispute as Nazul property.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements disputing the fact that the property in dispute was ever declared as evacuee property. They came out with the case that property in dispute is Nazul property and it is recorded as such in the record of Nazul Department. This could not be sold as an evacuee property. The parties led evidence. As many as 14 issues were framed. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 29.5.1995 decreed the suit restraining the defendants permanently to auction sell the property in question on the findings that the plaintiff has proved his title by documentary evidence. He filed documents such as sale certificate etc. while on the other hand the defendants could not produce any satisfactory evidence.;