Reserved
Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 202 of 2017 Revisionist :- Sri Ram Prakash Agrawal Opposite Party :- Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Srivastava,Ram Milan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vivek Saran
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vivek Saran, counsel for the contesting opposite party.
The instant revision is directed against the order dated 26.04.2017, whereby the defendant-revisionist's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
The U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad filed original suit no. 793 of 2016 for permanent injunction on the ground that plot no. 980 and 981 situated in village Lakadi Fazalpur, Pargana Tehsil and District Moradabad was acquired along with other plots for a Housing Scheme. The total area acquired was 34.79 acres. The defendants were interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit.
An application was filed by the defendant-revisionist stating that the dispute in the suit was essentially a boundary dispute between plot nos. 980 and 981 and plot no. 979/26, which dispute would only be decided by the revenue court. The suit was therefore, barred by Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
The application of the defendant was contested by the plaintiff alleging that the suit was not barred by Section 206 of the Revenue Code inasmuch as the land had been acquired for a Housing Scheme. It had therefore ceased to be agricultural land. The acquisition proceedings started in the year 1984 and possession was delivered to the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad on 30.10.2004 and a housing colony had been constructed since.
As regards the contention of counsel for the revisionist that a boundary disputed existed between the various plot numbers including plot no. 980, which was a chak road, it has been observed that there is no boundary dispute inasmuch as the plots all within the area, which has been acquired and that the possession had been handed over to the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in the year 2004 long before the enforcement of the Revenue Code, 2007 in the year 2013. It accordingly rejected the application.
The submissions made by counsel for the revisionist for assailing the order impugned are based on facts which do not find a mention in the plaint. It is settled law that while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is the plaint allegations alone which are to be considered. The submissions therefore are not material for the controversy involved in this revision.
I therefore do not find any illegality in the impugned order, nor it suffers from any jurisdictional error, warranting interference.
The revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.05.2018 Mayank ANJANI KUMAR Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea 049885bf64ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e2 10927d94f413, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36 MISHRA f85dbdc71f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25d bbadc93823915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2018-05-29 10:49:40