Umeshwar Pandey - (1.) -Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE plaintiff appellant's suit was dismissed by the trial court and those findings of the trial court have also been affirmed and first appeal has been dismissed. THE plaintiffs suit was for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants. He took a case that the plot in dispute being No. 461, area 1.66 acre was allotted to him by Zila Parishad and lease deed in that regard was executed. Out of total area, the plaintiff got possession of only 0.60 decimal and the remaining area 1.06 acre has been illegally continued in possession of the defendant No. 1, which is a Government College. In spite of repeated requests from the side of Zila Parishad as well as the plaintiff, the possession has not been given to the plaintiff by the defendant. Besides the defendant No. 1 is also trying to disturb the plaintiff appellant's possession over the part area of 0.60 decimal of that plot. Thus, for this cause of action, the suit was filed. On contest from the side of the defendant, it was pleaded that the property did not belong to Zila Parishad and it had no right to execute any lease in respect thereto in favour of the plaintiff. THE property is actually a playground of the college. This playground is there since inception of the college about twelve years back. No portion of that plot was ever given in possession of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff has no right to obtain decree for permanent injunction. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues and after recording evidence led from both sides the whole matter was heard and in the judgment the trial court found that the property was originally shown in the revenue record as 'parti', which is definitely a property belonging to Gaon Sabha and no part of it was ever in possession or in ownership of Zila Parishad. Since the Zila Parishad was not having any title in the property, it could not convey any such right or title to the plaintiff by executing the impugned patta. The trial court further found that no document worth the name, which could have been obtained by the plaintiff to show the title of his predecessors in the property, was advanced on record by proving the relevant register, which contains list of such properties of Zila Parishad. On the other hand, the possession of the defendant-Government College was found fully established in the disputed property and a portion, which the plaintiff claims to be in his possession, was also not found to be a correct contention. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, first appeal was preferred and the lower appellate court has also found that the khasra extract filed on record by the plaintiff appellant did not have any such mention as to the crops shown therein were actually there through plaintiff's cultivation. The Court further found that the photo stat copy of patta, which was filed on record, was simply a copy and as such, it could not be relied upon. Accordingly, finding no strength in the appeal, the court below has dismissed it and the decree of the trial court has been affirmed by the impugned judgment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the property, which was continuing in possession of the school/college before coming into force of the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972, used to be a property belonging to Zila Parishad and by virtue of Section 9A of the said Act, it vested with the State/Gram Panchayat/ Municipality. Therefore, the land in question, which undisputedly is in possession of the Government School, should be treated as a property originally belonging to Zila Parishad. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel appears to be wholly baseless and fallacious. Supposing that the property in question was originally property belonging to Zila Parishad but by enactment of this Act of 1972, it vested on the date of enforcement of the said Act in favour of Gram Panchayat or Municipality under Section 9A. After 1972 Zila Parishad no more remained the owner of the said property. Accordingly, the aforesaid argument that on the basis of Section 9A of the said Act, the property should be treated to be one belonging to Zila Parishad by the time the lease deed was executed in the year 1993, has absolutely no legs to stand. In the present case, the plaintiff-appellant had miserably failed to establish and trace his title through Zila Parishad and it is in this view of the matter that the court below has refused to grant the permanent injunction in his favour. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is perfectly justified and no substantial question of law arises therefrom as to occasion the admission of this second appeal.;