Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8391 of 2019 Petitioner :- Doodnath And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
A suit was filed basically against the State with the allegation that the plaintiffs were entered since 1334 Fasli and because of the wrong entries made in the revenue records thereafter, they were not entered on the date of vesting. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that as per the provisions of section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioners should have been entered and, therefore, neither the State nor the Gaon Sabha could have interfered with their possession. The Trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction and the Appellate Court affirmed the order. Aggrieved thereof, the instant petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the case of the petitioners itself was that they were not entered on the date of vesting because of wrong entries being made in the revenue records, then there was absolutely no justification for the Courts below to have assessed the title on the basis of entries. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Courts below have not been able to make any distinction between a prima-facie title and a prima-facie case. The case of the petitioners was that they were always in possession over the land in question. They were entered in the year 1334 Fasli and thereafter because of the mistake of the Lekhpal and the revenue officials, the revenue entries were changed and, therefore, under section 18 of the Act, they had got a right vested in them. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below have also not considered the rights as would vest under section 18 of the Act.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that when on the date of vesting, the entry was not there in favour of the petitioners, then there was no prima-faice case in favour of the petitioners.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that definitely when the petitioners were entered in 1334 Fasli and thereafter they continued in possession as was evident from the various documents in possession of the petitioners, then they had a prima-facie case in their favour and, therefore, an injunction ought to have been granted.
The impugned order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Varanasi and the order dated 17.7.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Varanasi, therefore, cannot be sustained. They are, accordingly, quashed. Respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 are injuncted from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. The suit is of the year 2013. Issues have yet not been framed. The Trial Court shall now make an endeavour to decide the case within a period of one year after framing the issues. Adjournment may be granted only under very pressing circumstances.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)