- (1.) The plaintiffs are in, second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and for correction of the revenue record was dismissed for the reasons that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
(2.) A decree for pre-emption of the land measuring 15 Bighas-19 Biswas on payment of Rs. 8198.75 paise, in favour of one Rulia and Banwari, was passed by the learned trial Court on 16-2-1962. It is the case of the plaintiffs that due to mistake, mutation consequent to the decree, was sanctioned in favour of Banwari i.e. predecessor in-interest of the defendants, though Rulia Ram remained in possession of the half share. It is also pointed out that Banwari had purchased another land measuring 14 Bighas-1 Biswa. After consolidation, the suit property came to be allotted in lieu of the aforesaid land in which Rulia had 8/15th share. Taking Advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue record, Banwari suffered a collusive decree on 15-3-1984, in favour of his sons. The said decree also became the subject-matter of the challenge in the present suit. The plaintiffs are the successors in-interest of Rulia.
(3.) The land in dispute was acquired by the State for a public purpose vide notification dated 23-2-1985 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27-9-1985. It was at that stage, it came to their notice that neither the name of Rulia nor his legal heirs found mentioned In the revenue record, which led to filing of the present suit. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs and took a stand that the pre-emption money, in pursuance of the decree for pre-emption was deposited by Banwari alone and that possession was taken over by Banwari alone. The mutation has been, thus, sanctioned rightly in favour of Banwari.;