KAILASHO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Prakash, J. This F. A. EO. filed by the plaintiffs-appellants is directed against the impugned order dated 20-4-19% made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Meerut rejecting the application for ad-interim order made by them.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a Suit No. 310 of 1996, Annexure-1 to the stay application, stating that plaintiffs are the owners in pos session of Khasra numbers which have been specified in Schedule A to the plaint ; that no acquisition proceedings in regard to the said plots were ever initiated by the defendants- respondents ; that the plots in dispute were thus never acquired by the respondents ; that no possession was taken by the respondents of the suit plots and that the plaintiffs are still in possession of them.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants adverting to the details of the land sought to be acquired as specified in the Notifica tion issued under Section 4 (1) and in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, submits before us that they do not refer at all to the plots in dispute and that only the land admeasuring 16 acres said to have been situated in Mauja Baraut Khas, Pargana Baraut, District Meerut has been mentioned in he said Notifications. His submissions that plots in dispute having not been mentioned in the said Notifications, it cannot be said that acquisi tion proceedings started in regard to the suit plots and that they have been acquired in the acquisition proceedings, said to have been initiated by the respondents. He also sub mits that if the acquisition proceedings, said to have been initiated by the respondent were intended with regard to the suit plots, then the proceedings will stand vitiated, in as much as the Notifications in question do not pertain to the plots in dispute. The Counsel for the appellants relied on the case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shaft and others, (1992)2 SCC 168 in which the description of the property except the place where the land is located given in the schedule set out in the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, is almost the same as given in the Notification dated March 22, 1955, issued under Section 4 (1) and the declaration dated September 2,1955, issued under Sec tion 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the case at hand. To appreciate the contention of the Counsel for the appellants we may reproduce the particulars of land as stated in the schedule given in the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) in the case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (supra): SCHEDULe Particulars of land Distt. Tehsil City/villa- Approxi- Authoris- Detail of ge mate area ed Officer public in hec- under Sec. purpose tares4 (2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Mandsaur Mandsaur Mandsaur 2. 29 Executive Residential Engineer M. P. Housing Construction Board, Ratlam Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the trial court should have accepted the contention of the plaintiffs and the defendants should have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs on the suit plots.