- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on point of admission of second appeal and perused the records. It appears that on the basis of admitted facts, this appeal may be decided at this stage. Therefore it is accordingly decided.
(2.) In Original Suit No. 1184/2002 (Prem Prakash Sharma v. Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & another), plaint case in brief was that earlier owner of disputed land was Kishan Lal, but plaintiffs had occupied the said land about 28-29 years ago and had raised his construction and boundary wall over it. From then he is continuing in his open adverse possession over this property. Said Kishan Lal had accepted the adverse possession of plaintiff and had not initiated any legal proceeding against him. But in year 1985, and then in May, 2002 the officials of defendant U.P. Awas Evan Vikas Parishad had threatened the plaintiff to demolish his constructions and take its possession forcibly. Therefore he has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the construction of plaintiff and interfering in his peaceful possession.
(3.) The defendants has filed written-statements in original suit, by which plaint case was denied and it was further pleaded that plaintiff has no right or concern with the disputed property. His suit is barred by Section 86 of U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Act. In their additional written-statement filed in first appeal, the defendant had pleaded that there was only one kachcha kotha on the disputed property and no pakka construction over it, which was unauthorized, which was removed by the defendants. The defendants are owner in possession of whole of the disputed property. The plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of disputed property and defendants have right to allot this property to any other person. Therefore the suit of plaintiff is liable to dismissed.;