Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -The plaintiff instituted a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. The plaintiff contended, that he was the owner and in possession of the ancestral house and the land appurtenant to it prior to the date of vesting and therefore the buildings, etc. was liable to be settled in his favour under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and that, the defendants had no right or title on the said land. The defendants, on the other hand, denied the ownership or the possession of the plaintiff over the land in question and further submitted that the Land Management Committee had issued a resolution dated 29.5.1977 allotting the land in their favour. It was urged that the allotment order issued by the Land Management Committee was valid and that they were entitled for the possession of the land.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, it transpires that the defendants took forceful possession of the land in question and raised certain constructions. Accordingly, an amendment application was filed which was allowed and a prayer in the plaint was incorporated, namely, for the removal/demolition of the construction so raised by the defendants over the property in question and for its possession. The trial court, by an order dated 12.12.1988 dismissed the suit holding that the land did not vest with the plaintiff under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal by an order dated 4.4.1989 and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in question for the last 40 years, i.e., prior to the date of vesting and therefore, the land was liable to be settled in his favour. The lower appellate court further found that the allotment order issued by the Land Management Committee was not effective because the formalities were not completed before the resolution was taken out, as contemplated under Section 122C of the Act, and that no evidence was filed to show that the defendants were put in possession by the Land Management Committee. The lower appellate court, further found that previous approval was not taken by the Land Management Committee from the Assistant Collector while issuing a resolution for the allotment of the land in favour of the defendants. The defendants filed a second appeal before this Court which was dismissed by a judgment dated 19.2.2000. The High Court held that the allotment order did not confer any right or title in favour of the defendants, inasmuch as, the said allotment order was in violation of the provisions of Section 122C and therefore, did not authorise the possession of the defendants on the land in question. The High Court further affirmed the finding that the plaintiff was in possession for the last 40 years and that the defendants came in possession and had raised a structure during the pendency of the suit. It has also come on record that a review application was filed which was rejected by an order dated 31.1.2003.
(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid decree, the execution proceedings were initiated. The judgment debtor filed an objection under Section 47 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the land was not identifiable and that the land was left out for the purpose of a Harijan abadi during the consolidation proceedings and therefore, the land had vested with the Gaon Sabha. It was also urged that the allotment order had not been cancelled by any authority and therefore, the judgment debtors could not be dispossessed. The executing court rejected the objections of the judgment debtors by an order dated 26.2.2005. The revision of the judgment debtors was also dismissed by an order dated 4.10.2006. Consequently, the writ petition. Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri A. K. Patel, for the petitioners-judgment debtors and Sri A. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder.;