Smt.Ramwati Vs U.P.S.I.D.C.and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165786

Court No. - 1

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 3115 of 1984

Appellant :- Smt.Ramwati Respondent :- U.P.S.I.D.C.And Others Counsel for Appellant :- ,Abu Bakht,K. Sahai,Pradeep Kumar Rai

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :-

¶6

V.D.Singh,M.A.Haseen,N.Lal,Pradeep Kumar,Tarun Verma

¶7

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶8

1. Heard Shri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶9

2. Shri P.K. Rai, learned counsel states that he appears for the impleadment-applicants whose impleadment application was allowed by order dated 9.7.2018.

¶10

3. The instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1984 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffappellant and confirming the judgment and order passed by the 5th Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad dated 13.12.1979 in Original Suit No. 899 of 1969 (Shyam Singh and others vs. U.P. State Industrial Corporation Ghaziabad). The appeal was admitted and notices were issued.

¶11

4. It appears from the record that the aforesaid Original Suit No. 699 of1969 was filed by the plaintiff-appellant seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from demolishing the house of the plaintiff and from occupying the land. The suit was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 13.12.1979. Thereafter, an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1980 was filed by the plaintiff-appellant which was dismissed with cost by means of the judgment and order dated 22.10.1984.

¶12

5. The trial court held that a suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 299-B and 225-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and the suit for injunction was wrongly filed. It was also noticed that in respect of the plot in dispute an order of eviction was passed by the Prescribed Authority, Ghaziabad under the U.P. Public Premises Act, 1972. Against the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, an appeal was filed which was dismissed and the appellate court's order was not

¶13

challenged before the High Court. It was held that the suit would be barred under Section 10 of the Act of 1972 and accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

¶14

6. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant after framing two points for determination, the appellate court, after considering the weight of the evidence on record, referred to a judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of plot no. 1565, which suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant and was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.3.1983. In that judgment, the High Court had held that the land of the plot no. 1565 was not owned by the vendors and therefore, no title to that land could be derived by the plaintiff. It was held that plot no. 1565 was acquired and the plaintiffs had absolutely no title over the plot after its acquisition and it stood vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh and thereafter it had been handed over to the defendant-corporation. It was noted that the proceedings for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 were taken and an order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority was confirmed by the appellate court which had become final and therefore, the suit for injunction is barred.

¶15

7. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, has stated that no substantial questions of law arise for challenging the judgment and order of the first appellate court.

¶16

8. I have perused the record. Given the elaborate and exhaustive discussion by the first appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1980, as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, no substantial questions of law arises in the present case. The suit has been correctly dismissed and the concurrent findings of fact are justified.

¶17

9. This second appeal is, therefore, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 A. V. Singh

¶19

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt.Ramwati v. U.P.S.I.D.C.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ramwati v. U.P.S.I.D.C.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aisha Vs Haji Riyazul Hasan and Others

M/S Kohli Construction Co. Vs Union of India

Ravi Kant Hardenia Vs Smt. Deepshikha

Yamuna Prasad Vs Jagdish and 8 Others

Ashish Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravi Kaant Sharma Vs Smt. Deepshikha