- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the or der dated 06-08-2005, passed by District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2005, whereby the order of temporary injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff (present respondent no. 2) by trial court, is affirmed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff (respondent no. 2), is Bhumidhar of Plot No. 33/1 of Village Mauja, Prateet Nagar, over an area of 5. 78 Bighas. It appears that a restau rant was being run by the plaintiff, as the land was situated by the side of the road. In the year 1994, plaintiff let out the building to Gairibdas (father-in-law of petitioner Hemlata), on rent at the rate of Rs. 24. 000/- per annum for 12 months and a registered lease deed was executed between the parties. The said lease was later extended for five years. Pleading that since the defendants (present petitioners) intended to raise further constructions over the plot in suit in which Midway Hotel was being run, the plaintiff sought injunction against the petitioners (defendants ). In said suit the trial court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh), on application 6c2, moved on behalf of plaintiff, granted temporary injunction against the defendants re straining them from raising further con structions. The said order dated 21-05-2005 was challenged before the lower appellate court (District Judge, Dehradun ). The said Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition. Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners drew atten tion of this Court to the provisions of Section 156 read with Section 165 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951), and argued that since in respect of land in suit no declaration under Section 143 of said Act was got made, as such the lease executed by the plaintiff, being in viola tion of Section 156, the rights of the lessor got extinguished under Section 165 of the Act. It is further contended that,, therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for injunction against the defendants and the courts below com mitted error of law in granting tempo rary injunction against the defendants, who have become Bhumidhars under Section 165 of the aforesaid Act.
(3.) I have examined the objection raised by the learned counsel for the pe titioners. The object of U. P Act No. 1 of 1951 is to abolish the Zamindari from the agricultural land. The legislature has intended that the intermediaries should be removed and they be not permitted to get the cultivation done through the tenants admitted by them. Had the land in suit been used for agricultural pur poses, what learned counsel for the pe titioners has argued could have been accepted. But from the lease deed, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, it is clear that the parties to the lease have admitted that the land was not being used for the purposes con nected with agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture or poul try forms. Rather it is admitted to the parties, as mentioned in the lease deed, that the land was being used to run a restaurant. That being so, it cannot be said that in respect of such a land which is being used for commercial purposes other than the purposes of agriculture etc. , is covered by Section 156 and 165 of U. P Act No. 1 of 1951. Learned counsel for the petition ers drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Shital Prasad Vs. Mohd. Sabbir, 1989 R. D. pg. 127, in which the Allahabad High Court has held that the lessee, to whom the land is let out in violation of Section 156 and 165 of aforesaid Act became the Bhumidhar of the land. I have gone through the said case law. It does not pertain to a land in which a Hotel was being run by the Bhumidhar, rather it appears to be a case of a land used for agricultural purposes.;