State of Uttarakhand and Others. ……………… v. Ajay Gupta and another

Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh through Sahayak Nagar Ayukta. ……………… Appellant Versus Bihari Lal Joshi and Others …………Respondents Present: Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State /appellants. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the private respondents. With First Appeal No. 201 of 2018 Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh. …………… Appellant Versus Yogendra Kumar Agrawal and others. ………Respondents Present: Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State /appellants. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the private respondents. With First Appeal No. 205 of 2018 Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh ………………… Appellant Versus Smt. Kamal Nakra and Others. ……………Respondents Present: Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State /appellants. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the private respondents. With First Appeal No. 208 of 2018 Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh through Sahayak Nagar Ayukta ………… Appellants Versus Ajay Gupta and Others. ……………Respondents Present: Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State /appellants. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the private respondents. 5 With First Appeal No. 209 of 2018 Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh Through Sahayak Nagar Ayukta ……………… Appellant Versus Pradyuman Kumar Mittal and Others. …………Respondents Present: Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State /appellants. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the private respondents. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. All these bunch of First Appeals involved common question of law and facts and as such, are being decided together.

2. Briefly stated the controversy involved in these bunch of First Appeals earlier came up before the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 8 of 1989 ‘Upendra Kumar and Others vs. State and Another’ wherein, relief for permanent injunction were sought against the State of Uttarakhand pertaining to land of Plot No. 279/1, area

22.54 Acres of Village Rishikesh. In this suit, in total, ten issues were framed for determination, out of which two issues are relevant to adjudicate the controversy involved in these First Appeals, which are as follows: i. Issue No. 2- Whether Plot No. 279 is the property of the State Government? If so, at which place and its affect. ii. Issue No. 3- Whether any amendment has been made in the revenue record carving out Plot No. 279/12? If so, its affect. After exchange of the pleadings and perusing the evidence the Trial Court has taken a view that Plot No. 279/1 belongs to the plaintiffs and the property mentioned in the plaint is not a part of Plot No. 279/12. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/VI FTC, 6 Dehradun, while deciding other issues i.e. issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 has also specifically held that fraction (Batta Number) of Plot No. 279/12 occurring after Plot No. 279/1 can only be carve out as per Land Record Manual i.e. 279/2, 279/3, 279/4 and so on but surprisingly there is no mention of those plot numbers. It was further observed and held by the Trial Court that the defendant State failed to establish that Plot No. 279/12 is the property of the State Government and even neither there is any description of Plot No. 279/12 nor there is any exact location where it is. Accordingly, the issue nos. 3 to 5 were decided against the State.

3. Learned Trial Court also held that the defendant/State has failed to establish that the property belongs to the State, if any, over Plot No. 279 and finally it has been held that the land of Plot No. 279/1 belongs to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute. Ultimately, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed by the judgment and decree dated

18.07.2001.

4. Aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 8/1989 the defendant/State of Uttarakhand preferred Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2001 before the learned District Judge, Dehradun, which was subsequently transferred and heard by the Additional District Judge/FTC III, Dehradun and dismissed the appeal by affirming the findings of the Trial Court by discussing all the evidences and the issues by judgment and decree dated 02.04.2004.

5. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that no such second appeal was preferred by the State challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dated

02.04.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2001, therefore, the judgment and decree rendered by the Trial Court dated 7

18.07.2001 has become final so far as the ownership of the plaintiff over the Plot No. 279/1 is concerned.

6. What has happened, on 05.10.2009, the State Government proceeded to acquire land of plot no. 279 / 1 temporarily showing it to be plot no. 279 / 12 for parking purposes in Kumbh Mela and took over it’s temporary possession by Possession Certificate dated 30.11.2009 and thereafter, Kumbh Mela came to an end on 31.05.2010 but possession of the land of plot no. 279 / 1 was not handed over to the plaintiffs of Civil Suit No. 8 of 1989, which was decreed on 18.07.2001.

7. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents whereby possession over the land of plot no. 279 / 1 was not restored Writ Petition (MS) No. 401 of 2010 was preferred for seeking quashing of Acquisition Notification dated 05.10.2009 as well as Possession Certificate dated 30.11.2009 with the direction that respondents be directed to restore the possession of the petitioners. In this petition, counter affidavit was filed by the State Government by contending therein that for the purposes of Kumbh Mela, land of Khasra No. 279 / 12 was acquired under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act and the land belonging to the petitioners, who were plaintiffs of Civil Suit No. 8 of 1989 was never been acquired. It was further contended that land, in question, which was acquired was recorded in the name of State Government in the revenue record, therefore, there is no question of awarding compensation as well as restoring the possession. The aforesaid Writ Petition (MS) No. 401 of 2010 was subsequently allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 05.10.2010. The relevant extract of the judgment dated 05.10.2010 is being reproduced herein under: “A perusal of the record shows that the trial court after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence has 8 taken a view that plot no. 279/1 belong to the plaintiffs- petitioners herein and the property mentioned in the plaint is not a part of plot no. 279/12. The Civil Judge (Senior Division)/VI F.T.C. Dehradun while deciding Issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 has also specifically held that fraction (Batta number) of plot no. 279/12 occurring after plot no. 279/1 can only be carved out as per Land Record Manual serially, namely 279/2, 279/3, 279/4 and so on, but there is no mention of those plot numbers. It was also held that the defendant-State failed to establish that plot no. 279/12 is the property of the State Government. Accordingly, Issue nos. 3 to 5 were decided against the defendant-State. It was also held that the 4 defendant-State has failed to establish that the property belongs to the State, if any, over plot no. 279 and in the last it has been held that the land of plot no. 279/1 belongs to the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) and the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute. Ultimately, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed by judgment and decree dated 18-7-2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant-State of Uttaranchal and another filed Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2001 before the District Judge, Dehradun. The said appeal was ultimately transferred and heard by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-III Dehradun. The first appellate court has also discussed the evidence issue wise, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 2-4- 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no second appeal was filed by the State, therefore, the judgment rendered by the trial court has become final so far 9 as the ownership of the petitioners over plot no. 279/1 is concerned. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners because the State-respondent has made temporary acquisition of the land of the petitioners of plot no. 279/1 showing it plot no. 279/12. It is obvious from a perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the State had taken the same stand in its written statement filed in the suit (O.S. No. 8 of 1989) before the trial court, which has been referred to above. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the garb of plot no. 279/12, the respondents took possession of the land of plot no. 279/1, which belongs to the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be correct because if plot no. 279/12 belongs to the State Government, there was no need of temporary acquisition of the land belonging to the State itself for the purpose of Kumbh Mela-2010. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed pertaining to second relief sought by the petitioners. The writ petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. The respondents no. 1 to 3 are directed to hand over possession of the land in question to the petitioners, mentioned in the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. VI, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 8 of 1989, wherein the boundaries of the land were also specified, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.” 10

8. As it appears from the aforesaid judgment, respondents were directed to hand over the possession of land, in question, to the petitioners mentioned in the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) in Original Suit No. 8 of 1989. Since there was no compliance of the aforesaid judgment, a Contempt Petition No. 220 of 2010 was filed. On 01.03.2011, charges were framed against the District Magistrate, Dehradun as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer for willfully and deliberately disobeying the judgment dated 05.10.2010 by not handing over the possession of the land in question to the petitioners. Before framing the charges, an attempt was made by District Magistrate, Dehradun and SLAO that possession could not be delivered, since the land could not be identified. While framing charge this Court in its order dated 01.03.2011 observed as under: “From the affidavits filed by opposite party no. 1 and the newly impleaded opposite party no. 3, it is clear that the order of the writ court has not been complied with by the opposite parties till date. The explanation given that the opposite parties are unable to identify the land, is a clear afterthought and is also mischievous. When temporary requisition of the land was made, then the opposite parties did not find it proper to identify the land at that stage, but now at the time of giving back the possession, various hurdles are being imposed by the opposite parties frivolously, so that possession is not given. The stand taken the opposite parties clearly appears to be an afterthought.”

9. Subsequently, judgment dated 05.10.2010 was complied with and possession was delivered and proceeding of contempt petition was closed by order dated 21.04.2011. 11

10. Now, based upon the above backdrop of the case and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 18.07.2001 in Original Suit No. 08 of 1989 which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, separate suits were filed by different persons, who are respondents herein praying for mandatory injunction against the State – defendant to restore back their possession over the property falling Khasra No. 279 / 1.

11. Since all these first appeals are arising out of common issues and therefore, for proper adjudication of the case, First Appeal No. 165 of 2019 (State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta and others) is being treated to be leading one which is arising out Original Suit No. 81 of 2011 (Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others).

12. Plaintiffs / respondents had instituted suits for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to restore the possession of property of the plaintiffs over Khasra No. 279 / 1, which has wrongly been shown as Khasra No. 279 / 12 in the acquisition notification dated 05.10.2009 The basis of institution of suit was that the defendant State under the garb of Khasra No. 279 / 12 took over possession of their land bearing Khasra No. 279 / 1 for Kumbh Mela purposes temporarily under the Acquisition Notification dated 05.10.2009 and after the Kumbh Mela is over, instead of restoring back their possession over the land, alleged that the suit land, bearing Khasra No. 279 / 12 belongs to State. The plaintiffs further contended in the suit that in fact, Original Suit No. 8 of 1989 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2001, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 02.04.2004 and the same has attains finality, since no such Second Appeal was filed by the State and as such, is binding upon the State in the subsequent suit filed for the same cause of action and relief. 12

13. In the suit, the State Government filed written statement reiterating the same stand as taken in O.S. No. 08 of 1989 by contending therein that the land in question, bearing Khasra No. 279 / 12, which was mentioned in the acquisition Notification belongs to the State Government and land of the plaintiffs has not been acquired.

14. Plaintiffs/ respondents in support of their case have filed copy of the plaint, written statement, judgment and decree dated

18.07.2001 passed in Original Suit No. 08 of 1989 as well as certified copy of the judgment passed by First Appellate Court dated 02.04.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2001 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Upendra Kumar and others), copy of Writ Petition (MS) No. 401 of 2010, counter affidavit as well as judgment of the High Court dated 05.10.2010 whereby WPMS No. 401 of 2010 was allowed along with copy of contempt petition No. 220 of 2010 and counter affidavit filed by contemnors including complete order sheet of the contempt petition.

15. In the said Original Suit No. 81 of 2011 (Ajay Gupta Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others), there were in total 4 defendants i.e. Collector, Dehradun, SLAO, Dehradun, Kumbh Mela Adhikari and Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh through its Executive Officer. In the suit, total 8 issues were framed which are being reproduced as under: “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint?

2. Whether the disputed land became the property of the State Government upon the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and whether the disputed property forms part of the land recorded in the name of the State Government under Khasra No. 279/12? 13

3. Whether the disputed land was acquired by the defendants for the purposes of the Kumbh Mela, but after the conclusion of the Kumbh Mela, its possession was not restored to the plaintiff?

4. Whether the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are applicable in respect of the disputed land?

5. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present suit?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?

7. Whether the present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

8. Whether the disputed property is owned, possessed, or managed by defendant no. 4?”

16. Thereafter, suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rishikesh by judgment and decree dated 07.09.2018 and now, being aggrieved with the same First Appeal No. 165 of 2019 has been preferred by the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court while decreeing the suit though observed that land measuring 16.24 acres of Khasra No. 279 / 12 is in the name of District Magistrate, Dehradun but no such Sajra, map or document were produced by the defendant and as such, it is not possible to locate where Khasra No. 279 / 12 is situated though copy of Khatauni of the land, which is not disputed were filed as Exhibit Paper No. 45 Ga / 25 to 45 Ga / 26 wherein the category of the land is specified under Category 6 (2) and in the revenue record name of the District Magistrate is recorded. 14

17. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that in fact, the land, in question, originally belongs to Bharat Mandir Trust, therefore, no individual can sold the same and at that time, entire Khasra No. 279 was recorded as Banjar land and as such, sale deed was forged, illegal and void despite this suit is decreed. He further argued that Mr. Ashok Prapan Sharma, who sold the land to the plaintiff had no right or title to sell the same which is subject matter of Original Suit No. 99 of 1991 filed by the erstwhile State of U.P.

18. He further argued that copy of Khatauni of Khasra No. 279 / 12 clearly reveals that the same recorded under category 6 (2) as barren land in the name of District Magistrate, Dehradun and Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh is maintaining the aforesaid land in support of which Nagar Palika Parishad submitted a copy of order dated 12.11.1971 published in the official gazette in which it is mentioned that land, in question, is vested in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh. He further argued that trial court has not considered that only a Revenue Court has jurisdiction to ascertain whether the land, in question, is situated in Khasra No. 279 / 1 or in 279 / 12, therefore, suit is barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further argued that on perusal of the plaint, written statement, judgment & decree, it appears that the actual dispute is nothing but appears to be a dispute of demarcation of suit property and even the plaintiff in his plaint has not been able to point out boundaries of the property, in question.

19. It is further argued that the trial court by exceeding its jurisdiction has passed the impugned judgment. As per own case of the plaintiffs, identification of the suit property is disputed and as such, suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the provision of Order 5 Rule 3 of CPC. It is further argued on behalf 15 of the appellants that there was admitted dispute of location and demarcation of Khasra No. 279 / 1 and 279 / 12 and plaintiff during his cross examination clearly stated that he was not aware about the boundaries of the suit property, therefore, the trial court has committed grave irregularity in allowing the suit. It is further argued that the trial court has failed to appreciate that in such cases where property is not identifiable, proper course of action would be demarcation proceedings in terms of Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act and as such, the original suit was barred by Section 41 H of Specific Relief Act. It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court has committed gross irregularity and illegality in relying upon the evidence and record of another suit bearing Original Suit No. 08 of 1989 (Upendra Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) instead of arriving at a conclusion on the basis of evidence available on record.

20. Apart from this, the learned State Counsel submits that dispute is nothing but relates to demarcation and the same can be resolved by way of getting the land to be demarcated but no such efforts were made by the plaintiffs to get suit property demarcated by resorting to the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. Learned Standing Counsel further argued that the entire case is based upon the earlier suit filed by one Upendra Kumar, which was decreed and the main contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that their land lies adjacent to the property of Upendra Kumar, therefore, they are entitled for the same relief. It is argued that the suit based upon the outcome of another suit is bad in law and the same cannot be made basis to grant relief. He further submits that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is not only erroneous but unexcutable, since the property in question was never been acquired by the Government and therefore, there is no question to hand over the possession to the 16 plaintiffs / respondents. He further submits that the decree of the trial court must be clear specific and capable of execution and the court should not grant vague or uncertain relief which leaves the execution doubtful and the court must ensure the decree is executable without any further clarification or inquiry. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal Vs. United Bank of India (2000) 7 SCC 120, Pratap Singh Vs. Gurubux Singh AIR 1962 SC 1172, Arundhati Mishra Vs. Sri Ram Charita Pandey (1994) 2 SCC 29, Bhavan Vaja and others Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang (1973) 2 SCC 40, Lachman Dass Vs. Jagat Ram (2007) 10 SCC 448.

21. He further submits that First Appeal filed by the State be allowed by dismissing the plaints or in alternate, remand the matter back to the trial court to re-frame the issues and get the survey conducted and thereafter, decide the matter afresh.

22. So far as first appeals filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad are concerned, Mr. Lalit Miglani, adopted the same argument as advanced by Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

23. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the appellants reiterates the same arguments as advanced in F.A. No. 165 of 2019 in other connected appeal i.e. First Appeal No. 103, 104, 105, 166, 168, 169, 176 and 177 of 2019.

24. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents argued that Original Suit No. 08 of 1989 was instituted by one Upendra Kumar and others against the State Government and their officials with this contention that they are owners of the land of Khasra No. 279 / 1 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 13.07.1988 whose previous owners 17 were Ashok Prapan Sharma and Harshvardhan Sharma. The officials of the State Government were interfering with their ownership and possession. In this suit, the State Government took the defence that the previous owner of the plaintiffs of O.S. No. 08 of 1989 had included 16.24 acres of Khasra No. 279 / 12 with 22.54 acres of land Khasra No. 279 / 1 and specific issue was framed by the trial court viz. issue no. 1 “whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land”, issue no. 2 - “Whether the State Government has any property in Khasra No. 279?. If so, its effect”, issue no. 3 “Whether site plan of Khasra No. 279 / 12 has been prepared? If so, its effect.

25. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court while adjudicating the issue no. 1, has held that Ashok Prapan Sharma and Harshvardhan Sharma, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, were owners of land bearing Khasra No. 279 / 1 and their names were recorded in the revenue record and the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. It was categorically observed by the trial court in its judgment while adjudicating the issue that the State Government for organizing the Kumbh Mela had taken consent from Ashok Prapan Sharma and Harshvardhan Sharma to use their land bearing Khasra No. 279 / 1 for temporary parking purposes for Kumbh Mela. He further submits that the trial court while adjudicating the issues no. 2 and 3 has held that the State Government has failed to prove that the State Government has any property in Khasra No. 279 and it was also held that Government officials as per their wishes changed the records, which is contrary to the Rules, objectionable and amounts to tempering with the records.

26. He further argued that aforesaid suit bearing O.S. No. 08 of 1989 was decreed by the trial court on 18.07.2001, which was 18 assailed by the State Government before the first Appellate Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2001 and the trial court judgment was affirmed by the first Appellate Court on

02.04.2004, against which no second appeal was filed by the State Government. He further submits that since no such second appeal was filed, as such, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 08 of 1989 dated 18.07.2001, which was affirmed by first Appellate Court by the judgment dated

02.04.2004 attained finality and is binding upon the State, particularly, when issue no. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Original Suit No. 08 of 1989 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and same is binding upon the parties, as judgment “in rem” and has also binding effect in the instant suit i.e. O.S. No. 81 of 2011 (Ajay Gupta Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) as well as in other suits in terms of Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further argued that the defendant / State Government has reiterated the same stand, which was taken in Original Suit No. 08 of 1989.

27. He further argued that the subject matter of all these appeals arising out of different suits are identical to the subject matter of Original Suit No. 08 of 1989, therefore, trial court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. He further submits that in fact, under the garb of Notification dated 05.10.2009, the State Government took possession of the land of Khasra No. 279 / 1 by showing it to be Khasra No. 279 / 12 and this aspect has been dealt by the High Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 401 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff of Original Suit No. 08 of 1989 by observing that if plot no. 279 / 12 belongs to the State Government, then there was no need of temporary acquisition of the land for the purpose of Kumbh Mela. He further argued that the High Court while deciding WPMS No. 401 of 2010 took note of the finding of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) while deciding O.S. No. 19 08 of 1989 in respect of issue no. 3 ,4 and 5 wherein it has also been specifically held that fraction “Batta” of plot no. 279 / 12 occurring after plot no. 279 / 1 can only be carved out as per Land Record Manual serially namely 279/2, 279/3, 279/4 and so on but there is no mention of those plot numbers and accordingly issue no. 3 to 5 were decided against the defendant – State. He further argued that since the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 08 of 1989 is binding upon the parties particularly, upon the State since judgment is in rem having identical issue, therefore, all these instant First Appeals preferred by the State are liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

28. Now, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, for proper adjudication of these bunch of first appeals, following points are being framed for determination: i. Whether the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2001 passed in O.S. No. 08 of 1989 (Upendra Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) affirmed by First Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 02.04.2004 are binding upon the parties, in terms of Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act. ii. Whether the Government Officials took over possession of land of Khasra No. 279 /1 under the garb of Notification dated 05.10.2009. iii. Whether the State Government is in fact is in possession over the land bearing Khasra no. 279 / 1? iv. Whether the decree of the trial court is executable particularly, when the stand of the State Government is that no possession of land of Khasra No. 279 / 1 was taken.

29. In reference to the point no. 1, admittedly, the issue as raised before the trial court are identical to issue of earlier suit 20 bearing O.S. No. 08 of 1989 wherein it has been held that under the garb of acquisition notification in fact, the possession was taken over of the land falling in Khasra No. 279 / 1 owned by plaintiffs and the same was also affirmed by Appellate Court and also by the High Court, therefore, the trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

30. The core issue, as raised before the trial court, is identical to the issue involved in O.S. No. 08 of 1989 and as such, this Court is of the firm opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is also binding upon the appellants – State / Nagar Palika. Though plaintiffs of earlier suit are different from plaintiffs of suits, which are subject matter of the appeals, even then, it is settled law that judgment in inter parties dispute is also admissible under Section 13 of the Evidence Act, particularly, when the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit bearing O.S. No. 08 of 1989. Thus, point no. 1 framed for determination certainly goes against the appellants – State / Nagar Palika.

31. So far as points no. 2 and 3 are concerned, the same relates to possession over the land falling in Khasra No. 279 / 1, which is undisputedly belongs to the plaintiffs, since there is no challenge to the sale deeds whereby plaintiffs derives their title over the land falling in Khasra No. 279 /1. Furthermore, though the acquisition notification dated 05.10.2009 pertains to land falling in Khasra No. 279 / 12 but as a matter of fact there is no such land, which has also been dealt by the High Court in its judgment dated 05.10.2010 passed in WPMS No. 401 of 2010 by observing that since fraction (Batta Number) of Plot No. 279/12 occurred after Plot No. 279/1 can only be carve out as per Land Record Manual i.e. 279/2, 279/3, 279/4 and so on but there is no mention of those plot numbers. One another aspect even if it is presumed 21 that land of Khasra No. 279 / 12 was acquired, then as per own admission of the State and Nagar Palika, the land belongs to the State then where is the question for acquiring the land which is owned by the State. In fact, all these aspects were carefully dealt by the trial court in O.S. No. 08 of 1989 which attains finality wherein it has been held that in fact that there is no land bearing Khasra No. 279 / 12 and possession was taken by the State under the temporary acquisition for Kumbh Mela, falling over the land falling in Khasra No. 279 / 1 which admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs. Thus, in view of the discussion as above and the finding recorded by the trial court in O.S. No. 08 of 1989 which attains finality point no. 2 and 3 are decided against the State / Nagar Palika by holding that in fact, under the garb of acquisition notification dated 05.10.2009, Government officials possession over the land of Khasra No. 279/1, which is owned by plaintiffs.

32. So far as point no. 4 is concerned, this point is admittedly very relevant. As per version of the State, the State is not in possession over the Khasra No. 279 / 1 rather is in possession over the land of Khasra No. 279 / 12 though there is no such land falling in Khasra No. 279 / 12, therefore, as observed above the possession was taken over by the State over the land falling in Khasra No. 279 / 1 which admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs, therefore, the State Government is under obligation to hand over the possession of the land to the plaintiffs.

33. So far as the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is concerned, admittedly, the trial court proceeded with the suit filed by respondents – plaintiffs in these bunch of appeals on the premise that for the identical issues earlier O.S. No. 08 of 1989 was decreed, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court and attained finality and admittedly the decree passed in earlier suit 22 was also executed and possession was handed over to the plaintiffs of earlier suit, therefore, the stand of the State – appellants that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, which is under challenge is not executable is misconceived. Now, keeping in view of the fact that there are many plaintiffs – respondents, who are claiming restoration of their possession over their respective land, falling in Khasra No. 279/1, therefore, in future, no further clash or dispute may arise, in between them, this Court directed that the officials of the State – appellant before handing over the possession, proceed with the demarcation of the land falling in Khasra No. 279/1 with the assistance of Revenue Officials and other competent authorities, who are authorized under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and on completion of such demarcation, hand over peaceful possession to the plaintiffs / respondents. The entire exercise of demarcation and handing over the possession be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

34. Subject to directions and observations made above, all these bunch of first appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit and judgment and decree passed by the trial court are confirmed. No order as to costs. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

24.09.2025 SKS