- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Second Appeals have been filed by same set of defendants i.e. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and its Estate Management Officer in two suits. Plaintiff in each suit was different. Second Appeal no.1444 of 2000 arises out of O.S. no.418 of 1997 filed by Lajja Ram. Second Appeal No.1445 of 2000 arises out of O.S. No.415 of 1997 which was filed by Mahaveer Prasad. Both the suits were decreed on 2.5.1997 by Civil Judge (S.D.) Ghaziabad. Against the said decrees defendants appellants filed Civil appeal no.105 of 1997 and 106 of 1997 which were dismissed by 2nd A.D.J. Ghaziabad through judgment and decree dated 13.9.2000 hence these second appeals.
(2.) These Second appeals were dismissed on 18.4.2003. Thereafter review petitions were filed which were also dismissed on 13.09.2007. Thereafter modification applications were filed which were also dismissed on 5.11.2007. Thereafter defendants appellants carried the matter to the Supreme Court where it was ultimately registered as Civil Appeal no.1184 and 1281 of 2008. Supreme Court set aside the orders dismissing the Second Appeals and the applications and directed the Second appeals to be heard afresh on merits through order dated 8.2.2008 which is quoted below. "Considering the peculiar circumstances highlighted by Mr. K.K.Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, we set aside the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No.107324 of 2003 in Second Appeal No.1445 of 2000 and in Second Appeal No.1445 of 2000 and direct the second appeal to be heard afresh on merits. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The civil appeals are allowed. No costs."
(3.) Thereafter, through order dated 17.5.2010 following three substantial questions of law were framed in these appeals:- 1. Whether, when the notification for acquisition issued by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was describing the land acquired on the basis of boundaries the claim of the plaintiff-respondent that the plots in question were not duly identified for acquisition could entitle them to an injunction against the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad? 2. Whether, after notification for acquisition of land has been issued under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam, the courts below could grant permanent injunction to the plaintiff-respondent without notification having been challenged or set aside by any competent court of law and as such the plaintiff-respondent were not entitled to the permanent injunction or any other relief granted by the courts below? 3. Whether, the plaintiff-respondent could maintain the suit after enforcement of the UPZA & LR Act and the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam and acquisition notification particularly when no declaration was sought under Section 9 (Sic. 229-B) of the UPZA & LR Act or under the relevant provision of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam prior thereto? The following substantial questions of law are also involved and have thoroughly been argued by learned counsel for both the parties.;