Allahabad High Court
Puranwasi & Others vs Third Additional District Judge, ... on 2 August, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18653 of 1997
Petitioner :- Puranwasi & Others
Respondent :- Third Additional District Judge, Ghazipur & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sankatha Rai
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
A suit was filed for injunction by the contesting respondent no. 2 on the ground that the name of the petitioners have incorrectly been recorded in the revenue records and it is the answering respondent who has title and possession over the land in dispute as such by way of a permanent injunction, the petitioners, herein, who are defendant in the suit, be restrained from raising any constructions or claiming any right over the land in dispute and they should be permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/respondent herein.
The petitioner's took an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of the intervention of the consolidation operations after notification under Section 4 of the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. This objection was upheld by the Trial Court and the suit was abated.
On the revision preferred by the respondent no. 2, the learned Additional District Judge was of the view that since the suit is only for an injunction as such the same would not abate under the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act. The revision was allowed, hence, this petition.
Learned counsel submits that a perusal of the plaint would clearly indicate that under the garb of injunction, the relief sought is that the name of the petitioners should be expunged and the suit be decided treating the respondent no. 2 plaintiff having a valid title over the land in dispute. In such a situation, the same had to be abated and no such injunction could have been granted.
The matter has been taken up in the revised called. In spite of the name of the learned counsel for the respondent shown in the cause list, no one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2.
I have perused the copy of the plaint which has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition and the nature of the relief claimed and also the pleadings contained therein.
The respondent no. 2 has clearly pleaded that he claims title over the land on the basis of a lease given by the Gaon Sabha in the year 1996 and he has become bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, as such his possession cannot be interfered with and, therefore the names of the petitioners recorded in the revenue records deserves to be expunged.
The nature of the pleadings and the relief claimed are clearly in the shape of a declaration in the nature of permanent injunction. The prayer is founded on the pleadings referred to hereinabove. In such a situation, the suit had to abate as no declaration could have been granted by the civil court after notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The revisional court has extensively discussed the title of the respondent no. 2-plaintiff to declare that he has established his case for an injunction which virtually amounts to a declaration. If that is the reasoning then such a declaration cannot be a subject matter of a suit after the notification under the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and and the same is accordingly allowed.
The order dated 8.4.1997 is hereby quashed and the suit shall stand abated.
Order Date :- 2.8.2011
Ram Murti
