- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. These four appeals arise out of separate suits based on similar and identical facts and were clubbed and are being taken up together.
(2.) THE plaintiff/appellants who claim to be in possession of constructions and the land in dispute were served with notices to remove their constructions from the said land failing which a first information report would be lodged against them. Accordingly, they instituted separate suits being Original Suits No. 54 of 2000, 43 of 2000, 55 of 2000 and 53 of 2000 against the defendant/respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents not to disturb their possession and to demolish their constructions alleging that the defendants/respondents have no concern with the land the constructions in dispute and that the plaintiff and and their predecessors in interest are continuing in possession of the land since time immemorial and have constructed their houses over the same. The defendants/respondents contested the suit alleging that the houses of the plaintiff/appellants are situate on the part of Khasra No. 1341 area 3. 780 hectare and Khasra No. 1342 area 1. 319 hectare which is land of the State Government and, as such, they are not entitle for any decree as prayed for. The Court of first instant dismissed the suits which judgments and orders have also been upheld in appeal by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellants have preferred these second appeals.
(3.) I have heard Sri K. K. Dubey and Sri D. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants and Sri A. L. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the defendant/respondents on the following common substantial question of law which arises in all these appeals and with their consent proceed to decide the appeal finally at the stage of admission : Whether despite the findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs have constructed houses on the land in dispute and are in actual possession of the same, the decree for permanent injunction could have been refused to them as admittedly no proceeding under law either for their eviction or for recovery of possession over the land in dispute have been initiated?;