SA/144/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 160 UK

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
         Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                   directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      10.01.2023                        SA No.144 of 2022
                                         Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The present Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

The appellants-plaintiffs had filed an Original Suit (No.238 of 2014) for declaration of ownership. The said original suit was dismissed. The First Appeal (No.96 of 2017), filed by the plaintiffs, has also been dismissed on 29.09.2022. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel along with Mr. Anil Kumar Dabral, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, submitted that the suit property has vested in the plaintiffs under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 prior to inclusion of the village Pasiyapura in Municipal limits, subsequently, upgraded as Nagar Nigam. He further submitted that since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property.

Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 requested time to file objection(s) to the stay application.

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the present Second Appeal is being admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether both the courts below have concurrently erred by not considering the inclusion of village Pasiyapura, Tehsil Kashipur in Municipal limits on 09.12.1979 while the UPZA & LR Act was enforced in the region w.e.f 01.07.1960 and the land had vested in the plaintiffs prior to inclusion of the village in Municipal limits subsequently upgraded as Nagar Nigam?

(ii) Whether both the courts below have misconstrued the entry of land in dispute in Class 6 (2) as non-

agricultural land as stated in Para A-124 of U.P. Land Record Manual, not recorded in the name of Nagar Palika or Nagar Nigam Kashipur?

(iii) Whether inclusion of any village in Nagar Palika would vest the Abadi land, in light of Section 116 of The Municipalities Act, which had already vested in the occupier?

Learned counsel for the respondents requested six weeks' time to file objection(s) to the stay application.

List this case on 10.04.2023.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 10.01.2023

Neha