Dismissed

Abdul Suhail v. Nagar Palika Parishad,Khairabad Distt. Sitapur Thru. Executive Officer and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2026SAPL/24/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal challenging rejection of a permanent injunction suit resisting ejectment from nazul land. Held that nazul land is public premises under Section 2(e) of the UP Public Premises Act, 1972, so Section 15 bars civil court jurisdiction; mere deposit of part freehold charges confers no right.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abdul Suhail vs Nagar Palika Parishad,Khairabad Distt… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

Reserved On : January 28, 2026 Pronounced On : February 13, 2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No. - 24 of 2026

Abdul Suhail

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Nagar Palika Parishad,Khairabad Distt. Sitapur Thru. Executive Officer And 2 Others

¶7

xecuve cer n	rs	..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Rajeiu Kumar Nazmul Hasan	Tripathi,	Ashish Verma,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶8

Court No. - 20

¶9

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶10

This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2025 passed by District Judge, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.70/2025 (Abdul Suhail vs. Nagar Palika Pasrishad, Khairabad and others) through which the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur in Civil Suit No.17/2024 (Abdul Suhail vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Khairabad and others) has been confirmed.

¶11

The factual matrix of the matter is that the land in dispute has been recorded as a nazul land and lease was granted to predecessor in interest in the year 1919 and 1920. Thereafter, the Government had taken a policy decision in the year 1998 wherein the Government allowed for a freehold rights. The appellant under the said policy had applied for the freehold rights and for which he had said to have deposited 1/4 of the freehold amount, however, no further development was done towards granting of the freehold rights. The application of the appellant was pending, in the meanwhile the Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued a G.O. on 27.07.2020 whereby it was clarified that the earlier policy decision of granting freehold rights to the tenure holder was kept in abeyance.

¶12

The Nagar Palika who was owner of the land had issued a notice to the appellant on 07.06.2023 and 23.06.2023 for ejectment from the said land. These notices were assailed by the appellant by preferring a writ petition

¶13

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

¶14

¶15

being Writ Petition No.5632 (m/b) 2023 before this Court which was disposed of on 11.07.2023 vide the following order:-

¶16

“ However it will be open to the authorities concern of the Nagar Palika Parisad Khariabad Sitapur to take appropriate action which may be permissible under law, after issuing appropriate notice keeping in view the observations made here in above”

¶17

In terms of the aforesaid order dated 11.07.2023 passed by this Court, the Nagar Palika issued a fresh notice to the appellant on 30.10.2024 for ejectment.

¶18

Assailing this notice, the appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction (being Suit No.17/2024) on 03.11.2024 and in the plaint, the appellant has clearly stated that he had constructed a house on a nazul land and as per the freehold policy, he had applied for freehold rights and paid a portion of the freehold money. In the plaint, it was further submitted that plaintiff/appellant had been depositing the house tax, water tax and also have an electricity connection. He further submits that as per the notice, the illegal construction was carried out by the plaintiff without getting his map sanctioned for which a notice was issued, the same has been assailed in a writ.

¶19

A written statement was filed by the State stating that, nothing has been filed to show that the freehold application was filed within the stipulated time, or the appellant or any of his family member had permission to use the Nazul Land. As per Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit was not maintainable. Even in the revenue records the land is mentioned as Nazul Land (NZA) and the lease granted on the nazul land has been cancelled in the year 1991 vide a Government Order. Further, the plaintiff had no legal status to put up the claim on the land.

¶20

The State also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Thereafter, an amendment application was also filed stating that the aforesaid land was registered as pond land and the same is a land for the public use on which the appellant had an illegal occupation.

¶21

Learned civil court vide his order dated 03.05.2025 rejected the suit on the ground that the aforesaid land was a nazul land and as per Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 ( in short, "the Act of 1972") which provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person who is unauthorized occupant of any public premises. The Court further held that as per Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 Nazul Land falls within the definition of public premises and hence no suit could have been entertained for a Nazul Land as per the bar laid down under Section 15 of

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

the Act of 1972.

This order has been assailed by the appellant by preferring a Civil Appeal on 30.05.2025 being Civil Appeal No.70/2025 along with an application seeking interim relief however, the interim relief was not granted.

¶26

During pendency of this appeal, the appellant preferred another writ petition before this Court being Writ-C No.7838/2025 in August, 2025 challenging the same eviction notice dated 30.10.2024. This writ petition was also disposed of on 19.08.2025 by passing the following order:-

¶27

“ 1. Heard Pt. S. Chandra, Advocate, who has filed power on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶28

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶29

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the notice dated 30.10.2024 so issued by the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Khairabad, District- Sitapur, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."

¶30

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had initially approached this Court in Writ-C No.5632 of 2023:Abdul Suhail Alias Mohd. Suhail Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging a similar notice dated 23.06.2023 issued by the Executive Officer of the respondent no.4 and also the notice dated 07.06.2023 issued by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area/City Magistrate, District Sitapur, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had constructed a house over some land situated in Mohalla Turkpatti, Khairabad, District Sitapur, which was nazul land. The petitioner was required to furnish all relevant documents and in case documents were not produced then legal action would be taken against the petitioner.

¶31

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that this Court in its order dated 11.07.2023 had observed that the notice did not indicate over which land construction of house had been made by the petitioner and was vague in nature, therefore, it could not be said that adequate opportunity was given to the noticee to place his case. The notice also did not indicate as to what action was intended to be taken against the petitioner. No prima facie fact finding enquiry has been detailed in the said notice dated 23.06.2023, therefore, the Court set aside the notices dated 23.06.2023 and 07.06.2023 and allowed the writ petition to this extent and at the same time this Court left it upon to the authorities to take appropriate action permissible

¶32

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

¶33

¶34

under law after issuing appropriate notice keeping in view the observations made by this Court in its order dated 11.07.2023.

¶35

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that respondents have also initiated proceeding under the Public Premises Act before the Prescribed Authority against the petitioner where the petitioner has appeared and filed his objections.

¶36

6. It has been submitted that impugned notice dated 30.10.2024 has been issued in purported compliance of this Court's observation made in its order dated 11.07.2023. However, again the notice is vague. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos.3 & 4 are proceeding on the basis of the Uttar Pradesh Nazul Properties (Management and Utilization for Public Purposes) Ordinance, 2024, which Ordinance has lapsed.

¶37

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 has stated that the respondent no.4 is acting in pursuance of authority given under the U.P. Municipalities Act, and not under the Ordinance of 2024 as the initial notice was issued in 2023 which was challenged by the petitioner and the notice was quashed only because it did not contain sufficient details by this Court in its order dated 11.07.2023.

¶38

8. It has been submitted that this Court itself had granted liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh by means of issuance of detailed notice which the respondent no.4 has issued in compliance of this Court's order dated 11.07.2023.

¶39

9. It has also been submitted that against the notice dated 30.10.2024, the writ petitioner had filed a Civil Suit in which objections were filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad Khairabad, alongwith an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The objection of the Nagar Palika Parishad was allowed. The Suit was dismissed. The petitioner has filed an Appeal before the District Judge against such order of dismissal of Suit, which is pending.

¶40

10. These facts have been admitted by the petitioner in his writ petition.

¶41

11. However, on a specific query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has submitted any reply to the notice dated 30.10.2024, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not replied to the said notice till date.

¶42

12. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

¶43

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

¶44

¶45

the petitioner to submit a detailed reply to the notice dated 30.10.2024 within ten days from today. If such a reply is filed within time as prescribed by this Court, the respondent no.4 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on such reply within a further period of four weeks.”

¶46

Thereafter, the appellant on 23.08.2025 had filed a reply to the notice dated 30.10.2024.

¶47

After hearing the parties, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on 09.12.2025 on the ground that the suit for permanent injunction which was filed by the appellant, was barred by Section 15 of the Act of 1972. This order has been assailed by preferring the instant second appeal.

¶48

After hearing the appellant and perusing the documents, this Court finds that the instant appeal raises the following substantial questions of law:-

¶49

“ 1. Whether the court can reject the plaint on pretext of involving jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Particularly, when the plaint does not raise any bar on the jurisdiction when no such averments were made in the plaint which could have attracted the provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1972.

¶50

2. Whether the suit was barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act, 1972.

¶51

3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree as passed by learned Court below is bad in law due to non consideration of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1972 which clearly provides bar of 'entertainment' of a suit against eviction of an 'unauthorised occupant' when suit has already been filed on 23.11.2024 while the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1972 was initiated on 23.01.2025?

¶52

4. Whether the impugned judgments and decree is result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction by ignoring the well established principles of law i.e. ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right there is a remedy) particularly in view of the fact that right to get the lease hold into free hold was there with the father of the appellant / appellant, after deposit of 25% of free hold charges as per policy decision of the State and during prevalence of such right for which the suit was filed prohibiting the respondents /defendants from forceful dispossession and demolition during pendency of the application for free hold ?

¶53

5. Whether any advantage could have been extended to the appellant especially when he has deposited ¼ fo the freehold amount.”

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in possession on piece of Nazul Land (plot No.400) in which he had constructed a house.

¶55

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

¶56

¶57

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per policy of the State Government issued in late 1990s he had also applied for the freehold rights and had deposited the 1/4 of the freehold charges and the proceedings are still pending. He further submits that the G.O. dated 27.07.2020 does not state that the earlier freehold policy had been cancelled or annulled it just kept in abeyance, hence it cannot be assumed that the freehold policy had came to an end.

¶58

A notice for ejectment was issued by Nagar Palika on 07.06.2023 and 23.06.2023. Initially, it has been assailed by means of writ petition before this Court but this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 had disposed of the writ petition with direction that a fresh notice may be issued by the respondent. Accordingly, notice dated 30.10.2024 was issued for ejectment. The same has been assailed by filing a suit for permanent injunction being Suit No.17/2024 and in the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant had clearly stated that he was in occupation of the said land and as per freehold policy he had applied for the freehold rights and deposited 1/4 of the freehold amount however, the matter was pending. During pendency of this application, the State had changed the policy some time in the year 2020 wherein a G.O. was issued indicating that the freehold policy should be kept in abeyance.

¶59

He also submits that since the State Government had changed the policy and the earlier freehold policy was kept in abeyance there but the freehold policy was not cancelled. The appellant further states in the plaint that he had been depositing house tax, water tax and also had an electricity connection on the plot.

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the court was considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC they only have to consider the contents of the plaint and not the defence and the rejection on the basis of defence is flawed.

¶61

To buttress this argument, he is placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Biswanath Banik and another vs. Sulanga Bose and others reported in [2022 SCC OnLine SC 314], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶62

" 17. From the aforesaid decision and even otherwise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint.”

¶63

He further placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble

¶64

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

¶65

¶66

Supreme Court in the matters of Keshav Sood vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood and others reported in [2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459] , and of Shaifali Gupta vs. Vidya Devi Gupta and others reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1181].

¶67

He further submits that the suit can only be rejected on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the basis of plaint and not on the basis of defence raised by the defendant.

¶68

Analysis

¶69

Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶70

As far as substantial question Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, this Court before going into merits of the case would like to delve into the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. The relevant provisions of this Act are as follows:-

¶71

“(i). Section 2(e)(iv) of the Act of 1972 defines public premises which is as follows:-

¶72

“ i) Nazul land or any other premises entrusted to the management of a local authority (including any building built with Government funds on land belonging to the State Government after the entrustment of the land to that local authority, not being land vested in or entrusted to the management of a Gaon Sabha or any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures);

¶73

(ii) any premises acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the consent of the State Government for a company, (as defined in that Act) and held by that company under an agreement executed under Section 41 of that Act providing for re-entry by the State Government in certain conditions;”

¶74

(ii). Section 2(g) of the Act of 1972 defines unauthorized occupation which is as follows:-

¶75

“ (g) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which are the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises has expired or has been determined, for any reason whatsoever, and also includes continuance in occu-pation in the circumstances specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7, and a person shall not, merely by reason of the fact that

¶76

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

¶77

¶78

he had paid any amount as rent, be deemed to be in authorised occupation."

¶79

(iii). Section 15 of the Act of 1972 is as follows:-

¶80

“ 15. Bar of jurisdiction- No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under Subsection (1) of Section 7 or the damages payable under Sub-section (2) of that Section or the costs awarded to the State Government or the Corporate Authority underSub-section (5) of Section 9 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs."”

¶81

A plain reading of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 shows that Nazul Land squarely falls in the definition of "public premises" as per Section 2(e) of the Act and Section 15 clearly bars the jurisdiction of any court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person who is unauthorized occupant of the public premises. The eviction notice has been assailed in the said suit.

¶82

A plain reading of both the aforesaid sections read with the content of the plaint clearly shows that as per the pleadings in the plaint the land in dispute is shown to be a nazul land and a nazul land as per the aforesaid section falls under the ambit of "public premises" hence, the jurisdiction of civil court is completely barred and the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding initiated for eviction of unauthorized occupant in a public premises as per Section 15 of the Act of 1972 hence, the plain reading of the plaint clearly shows that the complainant had accepted the land to be nazul land and as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 it fell in the category of 'public premises' and since there is bar of jurisdiction, the court has rightly rejected the suit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3 are decided accordingly.

¶83

As far as substantial question of law No.1 is concerned, the counsel for the appellant had submitted that if the court was considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, they only had to consider the contents of the plaint and not the defence and the rejection of the suit/appeal on the basis of the defence is flawed.

¶84

As far as this argument is concerned, the plaint itself shows that the land was a nazul land which as per Section 2(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 is a public

¶85

SAPL No. 24 of 2026

¶86

¶87

premise and as per Section 2(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, the plaintiff appellant is said to be unauthorized occupant on the public premises.

¶88

The appellant will not get benefit of this ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Sood (supra) and Shaifali Gupta (supra) as he himself has stated in the plaint that the land occupied and by him is a nazul land and as per the definition of public premises laid down under the Act of 1972 nazul land falls under the definition of public premises and as per Section 15 of the Act any suit or proceeding initiated by the civil court is barred.

¶89

The impugned order has been passed on the basis that the land is a nazul land and hence the same falls under the definition of public premises and under Section 15 of the Act of 1972, the court do not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Hence the civil court has rightly rejected the suit as per Section 15 of the Act which bars jurisdiction of civil court to entertain any suit concerning the 'public premises' and the appellate court had rightly upheld the same. The substantial question No.1 is decided accordingly.

¶90

As far as substantial question Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, there is nothing to show that on the application made by the plaintiff/appellant, the Government has granted freehold rights to them and in absence of the same, the appellant continues to be an unauthorized occupants over a nazul land unless and until a freehold deed is executed in his favour. Mere deposit of 25% of freehold charges would not entitle the appellant to be treated as a freehold occupant. With these observations, the substantial question Nos.4 and 5 are disposed of.

¶91

I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The instant appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶92

February 13, 2026 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶93

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶94

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abdul Suhail v. Nagar Palika Parishad,Khairabad Distt. Sitapur Thru. Executive Officer and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abdul Suhail v. Nagar Palika Parishad,Khairabad Distt. Sitapur Thru. Executive Officer and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Lko. and Others vs Smt. Lavleena Devi and Others

Ramesh Chandra Srivastava and 9 Others vs State Bank of India Gola Thru. Branch Manager Gola Pargana Hyderabad Tehsil-Gola and 6 Others

Mohan Lal vs Shiv Shanker (Deceased) and Others

Yash Mehrotra and 3 Others vs U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Lal Babu Paswan and Another vs Union of India Thru. General Manager North Frontier Railway,Guwahati

Bhawani Prasad vs Lalji Gupta