Allahabad High Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... vs Smt. Shanti Singh And Ors. on 1 May, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25206
Court No. - 5
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 220 of 2019
Appellant :- Life Insurance Corporation Of India Thru. Manager
Respondent :- Smt. Shanti Singh And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Prakash Tiwari,Aftab Ahmad,Ravi Nath Tilhari,Yusuf Uz Zaman Safwi
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Raebareli in Civil Appeal No.02 of 2018 In Re Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Smt Shanti Singh & Ors as well as judgment and order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.22, Raebareli in Regular Suit No.814 of 1997 In Re : Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Dr Suresh Kumar Singh & Ors.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation is that the State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification on 23.09.1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1982') for acquisition of the land bearing Khasra No.219/1 measuring 0 Bigha 10 Biswa 15 Biswansi; Khasra No.220 measuring 0 Biswa 4 Bigha 11 Biswansi; Khasra No.221 measuring 1 Bigha 12 Biswa 8 Biswansi; Khasra No.222 miljumla measuring 0 Bigha 3 Biswa 6 Biswansi total area 2 Bigha 11 Biswa 00 Biswansi. Subsequent thereto, notification under Sections 6 & 17A of the Act, 1982 was also issued and the procedure as provided under Section 5-A of the Act, 1982 was dispensed with.
4. It is contended that in the concerned area record operations were started in the year 1978-79 in which numbers and map of land situated in the aforesaid areas were changed by which the old Khasra numbers were allotted new Khasra numbers. However, the matter only pertains to old Khasras No.221 and 223, which were allotted new Khasra No.21. Incidentally, Khasra No.223 was never acquired by the State Government.
5. The dispute appears to have arisen when the defendants started raising constructions over their part of Khasra No.223 which had been purchased by them to which there is no dispute which, as already indicated above, constituted new Khasra No.21 which also constituted part of old Khasra No.221.
6. Being aggrieved with the construction being raised by the defendants, the Corporation filed a suit for permanent injunction being Original Suit No.814 of 1997 In Re Life Insurance Corporation vs Dr Suresh Kumar Singh & Anr. During pendency of the said suit, Dr Suresh Kumar Singh died and was substituted by his legal heirs.
7. Learned Trial court framed various issued but controversy, as per the learned counsels for the contesting parties, only revolves around issue no.2 which was as to whether the disputed property pertaining to Khasra No.21 (belonging to the defendants) is part of the Khasras acquired.
8. Learned trial court after considering the evidence as had been led by the parties conclusively held that although new Khasra No.21 comprises of old Khasras No.221 & 223 yet Khasra No.223 was having a lesser area by 5 Biswa. Likewise of the land acquired for the Corporation of Khasra No.222, part of it had gone in the road. The disputed land measured 9 x 70 mtr. Although the Corporation was having lesser area than what was acquired for it yet the learned Tribunal conclusively held that the plaintiff-Corporation has failed to prove that the disputed area is part of Khasra No.21, which could be said to be of the Corporation and accordingly dismissed the suit filed by the Corporation.
9. Being aggrieved, the Corporation filed an Appeal No.2 of 2018 In Re Life Insurance Corporation vs Smt Shanti Singh and others.
10. Learned Appellate Court also, after framing point for determination, which was as to whether the disputed area comprising of 9 x 70 mtr has been acquired conclusively held that there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned trial court and also dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation.
11. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed.
12. The substantial questions of law have been framed by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the Court is of the view that none of the substantial questions of law as framed in the second appeal are substantial and reasons are as follows:-
13. Admittedly, the land was acquired by the State on 23.09.1975 of which Khasra No.223 was not part of the acquisition. The old khasra numbers were subsequently converted into new Khasra numbers of which Khasra No.221 & 223 formed part of new Khasra No.21.
14. Admittedly, the defendants had purchased Khasra No.223 which, as already indicated above, was not part of the acquisition of the land in the year 1975. It has also not been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant that at any stretch of time Khasra No.223 was ever acquired.
15. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that whole Khasras No.221 and 223 constituted to new Khasra No.21.
16. Dispute pertains to an area 9 x 70 mtr over which the defendants were raising construction.
17. Being aggrieved with the said construction, the Corporation had filed a suit for permanent injunction contending that the defendants were raising construction over the old Khasra No.221 (New Khasra No.21). Learned Trial court after considering the evidence as had been led by the parties, arrived at a specific finding that the Corporation has failed to prove that any construction is being raised over the disputed area i.e. comprising 9 x 70 mtr by the defendants meaning thereby that the learned Trial court came at a conclusive opinion that the construction which was being raised by the private respondents did not comprise part of Khasra No.221.
18. The corporation being aggrieved filed an appeal.
19. The appellate Court also determined the points of determination and after considering the evidence as also the evidence led before the learned trial court including the report of the Tehsildar arrived at a specific finding that no evidence has been led by the Corporation to indicate that the disputed area i.e. 9 x 70 mtr over which construction is being raised by the defendants is part of Khasra No.221 and accordingly the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
20. From perusal of the aforesaid and the judgment of the learned appellate court, it clearly emerges that at no stretch of time has the Corporation ever proved that Khasra No.223 which has been purchased by the defendants and which form part of Khasra No.21 (New Khasra) which also comprised old Khasra No.221, any construction was being raised over part of Khasra No.221 which had been acquired by the Government in the year 1975. Specific finding of fact has been recorded by the two courts i.e. the learned trial court and the learned appellate court after taking into entire evidence including the report of the Tehsildar.
21. It would be pertinent to mention that a specific finding has been recorded by the learned trial court that part of Khasra No.222 (Old Khasra) has gone in the construction of the road. Admittedly, the areas of the land that had been acquired for the corporation is less than what exists on the map which is the same situation as prevails for Khasra No.223 also, which had been purchased by the defendants.
22. Once specific finding of the fact has been recorded by the learned trial court that Khasra No.222 has gone in construction of the road and the report of the Tehsildar has also been considered threadbare by the learned appellate court from which also it emerges that the Corporation is having a lesser area than what has been acquired but at the same time, the Corporation has failed to prove that in any area over which construction was being raised by the defendants more particularly area comprising of 9 x 70 mtr was part of Khasra No.221 or for that matter any part of the area which had been acquired by the corporation. Consequently no error is found in the both the judgments as passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court.
23. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
prateek
