Dismissed

Subhash Pal and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 25 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023A227/7530/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 challenging dismissal of temporary injunctions for land disputes. High Court found no fault in lower courts refusing injunction due to undefined possession areas and lack of documentary title evidence, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no interference with impugned orders refusing injunction for Plot No.6.

Subhash Pal and 15 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170664

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7530 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Subhash Pal And 15 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 25 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Chandra Naik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶7

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶8

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.2.1997 passed by IVth Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Varanasi in Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. (Paper No.6 C) in original suit no.471/92 so far as it relates to the plot no.6 only situated in VillageAdampur, Pargana-Shivpur, Tahsil and District - Varanasi, as well as the judgement and order dated 11.4.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No.13, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No.52 of 1997 and Civil Appeal No.62 filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. and restrain the defendants/respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over plot no.6 (0-12 Dismil) situated in Village-Adampur, Pargana-Shivpur, Tahsil and District- Varanasi and maintain status quo during pendency of Original Suit No.471/92 or pass such other and further orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶9

3. It appears that a suit for permanent injunction was filed against the defendant-first set and second set with regard to two plots of land namely, Plot No.5 area 0.10 decimal, which was

¶10

shown in the plaint map as अ, ब, य. The other area in dispute

¶11

was marked in the plaint map as अ-1, ब-1, ब and य on Plot No.6 area 0.12 decimal. The petitioners claim that the area of land on Plot No.6 is their 'sahan' (courtyard). Admittedly, the suit property is abadi land. On record before the trial court were,

¶12

inter alia , a report of a Special Commissioner dated 05.01.1993, a report of the Lekhpal dated 17.08.1996, and also a Khatauni for the fasli year 1359.

¶13

4. By the impugned order of the trial court dated 28.02.1997, the application paper no.6-C filed by the plaintiff-petitioners seeking temporary injunction was dismissed as far as Plot No.6 is concerned, but was allowed for the suit property pertaining to Plot No.5. The petitioners challenged the order in an appeal being Civil Appeal No.52 of 1997. It appears that alongwith the appeal of the petitioners, the State of U.P. and the Gram Sabha also filed an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.62 of 1997. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by means of a common judgment and order dated 11.04.2023 by means of which the order of the trial court dated 28.02.1997 was affirmed.

¶14

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute before this Court is only with regard to Plot 6. It is contended that the claim of the plaintiff-petitioners is only with regard to a part of Plot No.6 which is a 'sahan' of the petitioners. It is contended that the defendants-private parties are encroaching upon the 'sahan' of the petitioners which is causing irreparable injury to the petitioners.

¶15

6. A perusal of the order of the trial court dated 28.02.1997 reflects that the court has referred to the report of the Commissioner and has observed that it is not reflected that on which part of Plot No.6 are the plaintiff-petitioners in possession and the map filed alongwith the Commissioner's report does not contain any measurements. Accordingly, the relief with regard to Plot No.6 was refused. The appellate court, in its judgment dated 11.04.2023, has observed that as far as Plot No.6 is concerned, the names of private defendants are

¶16

recorded thereon and there was no documentary evidence filed to show that petitioners had title or possession of Plot No.6. Paper No.81-Ga was an order of the Pargana Magistrate dated 09.11.1992 reflecting a Masjid on Plot No.6. Accordingly, it was observed that no temporary injunction can be granted to the plaintiff-petitioners and the petitioners' appeal with regard to Plot No.6 was rejected.

¶17

7. Given the aforesaid observations of the court and the fact that the measurements of the suit property with regard to the Plot No.6 were not mentioned in the report of the Court Commissioner and even the report of the Lekhpal does not contain any exact measurements, the orders of the court refusing to grant injunction as far as Plot No.6 is concerned cannot be faulted. The area of Plot No.6 stated to be in the possession of the plaintiff-petitioners is, prima facie, not defined. It would be a matter to be considered after evidence in the trial.

¶18

8. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in the orders and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 SK

¶20

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash Pal and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 25 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Pal and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 25 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Prakash Vs Shri Om and Others

Smt. Asha Devi Agarwal and Others Vs Sardar Santokh Singh

Qayum and Others Vs Udai Nath and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Gyanti Singh and 6 Others

Kinsraj (Deceased) and 5 Others Vs Jagdev (Deceased) and 4 Others

Heeralal Gupta Vs Girja and 3 Others