- (1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and decree dated 12.10.2006 passed by the trial court by means of which the suit filed by the plaintiff -appellant for permanent injunction and declaration was dismissed.
(2.) The facts, in nut shell, are that initially the appellant -Parishad filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents No. 1 and 2 alleging therein that the dispute relates to a portion of land of khasra plot numbers 261 and 258 situated at Village Bastauli, Pargana and Tehsil and District Lucknow, which comes under the Indira Nagar Yozna, Lucknow of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (for short 'the Parishad') as the possession of the aforesaid plots was delivered to the appellant -Parishad vide letters dated 7.3.1973 and 7.9.1973 respectively and through land acquisition proceedings, the appellant -Parishad acquired the said land for the aforementioned Yojna vide notification published under Sec. 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') in the U.P. Gazette dated 20.12.1969 and the notice under Sec. 32 of the Adhiniyam was published in the U.P. Gazette dated 26.6.1972 and after conducting other proceedings as contemplated under law, the award was made and the possession of the acquired land of the scheme was delivered to the appellant -Parishad by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with law, consequent to which the appellant -Parishad became the owner of the said land. It was alleged that a part of land khasra plot No. 261 measuring 0 -19 -10 was recorded as Talab, though it was a deep pit on the spot and the same was filled up by the appellant -Parishad on which a huge amount was spent and a part of the land of khasra No. 258 measuring 1 -7 -2 was recorded in the name of Gram Samaj in the revenue records, but since the said land lies within the area of the Yojna, the same also vest into the appellant -Parishad as provided under Sec. 38 of the Adhiniyam after giving the notice to the Gram Samaj as the appellant -Parishad was in actual and physical possession over it. In pursuance to the said notice, Gram Vikas Samiti, Bastauli, Tehsil and District Lucknow filed a suit for permanent injunction for the land of khasra No. 261 measuring 19 biswa, 10 biswansi bearing Regular Suit No. 283/1988, Gram Vikas Samiti v/s. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, in which an ad -interim injunction was granted. It was alleged that on 11.10.1995 respondent No. 1, who poses himself to be the Secretary of one New Azad Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, without any authority, interest or title, started interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant -Parishad with the help of antisocial elements by trying to raise thatched cottage, regarding which an FIR was lodged by the appellant -Parishad on 11.10.1995 in the police Station Gazipur, Lucknow, but in spite of that nothing happened. During the pendency of the suit, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an objection/counter affidavit against the application and the affidavit filed by the appellant -Parishad under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC stating therein that a lease deed was executed by the respondent No. 3 -Nagar Nigam in their favour in respect of the property in suit, therefore, they are the owners of the said property and it was necessary for the appellant -Parishad to challenge the said ownership of the respondent No. 3 -Nagar Nigam by impleading it as a party in the suit. Thereafter, Nagar Nigam was impleaded as a party in the suit and an additional prayer was made for declaration along with permanent injunction. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 -Nagar Nigam has no right, title or interest in the property in suit as the same was acquired by the appellant -Parishad under a housing scheme known as "Bastauli -Gazipur Bhumi Vikas Evam Grih Sthan Yojna" on Faizabad -Lucknow Road in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 28 of the Adhiniyam and the same was also published in the Gazette on 20.12.1969, as a consequence thereof the State Government sanctioned the housing scheme by means of notification published in the official gazette on 8.7.1972 in accordance with the provisions contained in sub -section (1) of Sec. 32 of the Adhiniyam and ultimately vide Government Gazette notification dated 12.10.1972, the State Government authorised the Collector to take possession of the acquired land by invoking the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act in pursuance to the said notification, the possession of the acquired land of Village Bastauli, including the property, in suit was taken over, pursuant to which the appellant -Parishad fulfilled all the formalities under Sec. 38 of the Adhiniyam in respect of the property related to the Gram Samaj of the said village. Therefore, it was alleged that after the aforesaid acquisition of the property in suit, the Gram Samaj, Bastauli has no right, title and interest and consequently, respondent No. 3 -Nagar Nigam had also no right, title and interest over the said property and for illegal means and motive, respondent No. 3 -Nagar Nigam executed the lease deed dated 25.3.1995 in respect of the property in suit in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the said lease deed is a void document and do not confer any right or title on all the respondents nor the respondent No. 3 -Nagar Nigam was in possession over the property in suit at any point of time. It was also alleged that the property in suit was vested in Village Bastauli, Pargana Tehsil and District Lucknow and no notification or Government Order has been passed in respect to vesting the property in suit from Gram Samaj, Bastauli to the Nagar Nigam under Sec. 117 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, therefore, the Nagar Nigam had no right, title or interest over the property in dispute and the appellant -Parishad through a valid acquisition proceedings, acquired the said property.
(3.) Written statement was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 denying the allegations made in the suit and it was said that the court fee paid is insufficient as the valuation of the property in suit has wrongly been fixed and the present cost of the property in suit is very high, therefore, on this score alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed.;