JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. These bunches of 23 appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 9th October, 1995, passed by the Additional District Judge, Mirzapur allowing appeals, which were filed against Judgment and order dated 16.10.1982 of the Munsif, Dudhi, Mirzapur.
2. Twenty three suits were filed by the plaintiffs-appellants praying for declaration that they are owners of the sites on which their shops were situated since long and the defendants Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Hindalco) is neither its owner nor in possession of the land, hence it be restrained by permanent injunction from evicting them from the sites of their shops or interfering in their possession. In some of the suits, plaintiffs sought declaration that they were owners of the sites and the defendant Corporation had no concern with it and that defendant Hindalco be restrained from interfering in their possession in any way.
3. The trial court decreed the suits, against which 23 civil appeals were filed by defendant-Hindalco. The appellate court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits, hence 23 Second Appeals have been filed in this Court. Common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Appeal No. 1894 of 1985 arising out of Suit No. 3 of 1971, Ram Shakal v. Hindalco, has been taken as leading case.
4. The case of the plaintiffs is that there exist large number of shops at Renukoot towards East of Robertsganj on Chopan Plpri Turra Road. Towards west of the road, there is a factory of Hindalco and residential quarters of the said company. Each of the plaintiff has raised shops towards east and west of the said road, which is a National Highway, plaintiffs established their shops in 1959-60 and are carrying on business there for the last more than 12 years, without any interference, hence they have become owners of the land of the shops by adverse possession.
5. The case of the defendant is that land in question belonged to Forest Department and was transferred to them under Government Grants Act by sale deed dated 9.9.1962, which was registered on 11.9.1962, executed in their favour by the Government of U. P. for establishing Aluminium factory and purposes connected therewith. Prior to the said transfer, land was of the Forest Department and the defendant corporation after spending huge amount established factory and residential quarters/areas. There existed a small village and metalled road, which connects Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. On establishing the factory to the west of the road, a township sprang up. Plaintiffs occupied both sides of patri of the said Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road and have established shops illegally on patri of the road. Defendant-Hindalco did not threaten plaintiffs to demolish their constructions and plaintiffs have no cause of action against Hindalco but they are liable to be ejected, as their possession was wholly illegal. Proceedings under U. P. Regulation of Building Operations Act were launched by the Prescribed Authority of the State Government and the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the defendant-Hindalco. It was also pleaded that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suits and suits are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Pleas about the court fee. etc, were also taken. The trial court framed following 9 issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiffs acquired and perfected title by way of adverse possession?
(2) Whether plaintiffs had a cause of action to file the suit?
(3) Whether plaintiffs were in possession over the land in suit for more than 12 years?
(4) Whether the suit was barred by Sections 38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act?
(5) Whether the suit was undervalued and court fee paid was insufficient?
(6) Whether civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit?
(7) Whether suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?
(8) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?
(9) Whether the land in suit including the other lands was forest land and was included in sale deed dated 9.9.1962 in favour of defendant?
6. On issue Nos. 1 and 3, the trial court held that plaintiffs were in possession of the shops-from 1956 to 1958 and that they have acquired title over the sites of their shops by way of adverse possession. The trial court appointed Advocate Commissioner who reported that 23 shops were situated within the boundary of 245 acres, which was included in 771 acres of land transferred to the defendant-Hindalco. The trial court decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs could not be dispossessed otherwise than due course of law and it restrained defendant from forcibly evicting the plaintiffs from the land in their possession. The trial court on issue No. 5 held that suit was properly valued and court fee paid was sufficient. On issue No. 6, the trial court held that no argument has been advanced before it. It also held that the civil court had Jurisdiction to try the suits and it was not bad for non-joinder of parties.
7. The Defendant Corporation filed appeals, which were allowed by the impugned Judgment dated 9.10.1995, hence aforesaid 23 second appeals have been filed by the shopkeepers.
8. I have heard both the parties at length.
9. The only point pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellants is that they have acquired right over the land over which their shops existed by adverse possession.
10. It was contended by the defendant-respondents that there was no evidence from the side of appellants to prove that land acquired by the defendant-respondent (Hindalco) was situated to the east of Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road and description of the land given in the sale deed dated 9.9.1962 was vague and it has not been proved that the land of the defendant Hindalco includes land to the east of Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road or belongs to HIndalco. It was pointed out that according to the evidence width of the said road on both sides should be 110 feet from its centre. It was also argued that there was no boundary wall of the factory of the defendant. According to the map of the Commissioner, there are shops of Zila Parishad in between the road and gate of the factory of the defendant-respondent which shows that disputed shops of appellants are not situated within the land of the defendant-Hindalco.
11. The lower appellate court after perusing oral and documentary evidence, map and report of the Advocate Commissioner, held that 245 acres of forest land given to the defendant-respondent was adjacent and towards east of Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road and that there was no evidence from the side of the plaintiffs to show that in between the land of Hindalco and Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road, there is land of any other person. It was further stated that plaintiffs failed to prove that above 245 acres of land was not part of 771 acres of land, mentioned in the sale deed dated 9.9.1962 or did not include land situated adjacent towards east of Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road. It further held that even if Zila Parishad had constructed some shops, adjacent to the east of Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road, it does not give any right to the plaintiffs and that land of the appellants was not to the east of the said road. After thoroughly scrutinising the evidence, lower appellate court held that situation of the disputed shops as reported by the Advocate Commissioner could not be disputed. It recorded a finding that :
"the above facts and circumstances and evidence on record shows that the appellants successfully proved that shops in the suits are situated in 245 acres of land, lying towards east of said Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road."
12. Relying on the law declared by Privy Council in the case of Azuj Ali Kidwai and Ors. v. Special Manager Courts of Wards, AIR 1935 PC 53 and Nirmal Chand v. Gaya Prasad Dixit, AIR 1979 All 74, the Court held that it is well-settled that in order to prove adverse possession, the person claiming it has to prove that he was in continuous open and hostile possession to the real owner and remained in hostile possession, without his consent for more than 12 years. The Court held that plaintiff of Suit No. 5 of 1971 and in few other cases, the plaintiffs admitted that land, over which shops are situated, belongs to Forest Department but none of the plaintiffs in the plaint have stated that they acquired possession adverse to the real owner, i.e., Forest Department.
13. According to the lower appellate court, some of the plaintiffs even stated that they had no knowledge as to whether site of shops belongs to Hindalco. Some of them stated that it belongs to Forest Department but they nowhere stated that they ever asserted their hostile possession adverse to the Forest Department or Hindalco. Plaintiffs of all the suits have asserted that they were occupying sites for 12 years but nothing has been shown as to how and when they came in possession and since when they asserted hostile and open possession. Period of adverse possession must be for more than 12 years before the suit against real owner, other than the Government. For claiming adverse possession against the Government, open hostile and continuous possession of 60 years was required under the Old Limitation Act (Article 149 of the Limitation Act).
14. The lower appellate court held that it is admitted case of the parties that previously land in the suit belonged to Forest Department i.e., Government of Uttar Pradesh. The possession of 771 acres of land was delivered by the State Government to defendant-Hindalco in the year 1960. Subsequently sale deed regarding the said land was executed under the Government Grants Act in the year 1962 on 9.9.1962.
15. No adverse possession is claimed against the State Government It was dense forest before 1962, Only after the factory was established, the plaintiffs-appellants occupied the land along with roads as abadi developed. The burden is on the person, claiming adverse possession to prove duration of possession, either against first or against second owner. The period of limitation for perfecting title by adverse possession are different. Admittedly prior to 1962, the plaintiffs could not claim setting up of shops on forest area. The State of U. P. was true owner. In the year 1962, defendant respondent acquired title over the land in suit and road was constructed thereafter by U. P. Government. Therefore, plaintiff of all suits failed to prove continuous and hostile possession against the Government of U. P. for a period of sixty years, which is necessary for proving adverse possession, or against Hindalco for 12 years. The State Government is not party to the suits. In para 69 of the judgment, the lower appellate court recorded a finding after scrutinising the evidence of each case thus :
"In view of the above circumstances and observations it is clear that the plaintiff-respondents of all the suits have not been able to prove the ingredients of adverse possession, i.e., continuous, open and hostile possession for more than 12 years, therefore, they cannot acquire title by way of adverse possession."
16. This finding recorded by the lower appellate court is a pure finding of fact and cannot be interfered by this Court in second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs have failed to prove prima facie case and lower court dismissed the suits for injunction rightly.
17. It was next contended before me, as was contended before the lower appellate court that plaintiffs cannot be ejected by force except in accordance with law and relied on the case of Smt. Bisni Devi v. Bahadur Singh, 1980 AWC 194 : AIR 1980 All 209 and Daya Nand v. Harpal, 1982 RD 125, in which law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of AIR 1972 SC 229& was followed. In the case, of N.S.S. v. K. C. Alexender, AIR 1972 SC 2299 (supra), it was held that decree for injunction in favour of the trespasser, as against true owner, cannot be passed and a trespasser can, on the strength of his possession, resist interference from a person, who has no better title himself but not against a true owner. Thus, it is settled law that a trespasser cannot claim relief of injunction against true owner but in the present case, the plaintiff appellants are seeking injunction against Hindalco, which has stated that it is not evicting them by force. Suit for permanent injunction by a person in possession, cannot be maintained against a true owner. State Government is not party to these suits. The view taken by the lower appellate court that plaintiffs adverse possession is not proved does not call for any interference by this Court.
18. It is strange to see that though parties admitted that the land is situate on patri of Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road, which belongs to the State Government and is maintained by the Public Works Department, yet neither the State Government nor the Public Works Department were made parties to the suits or appeals. The suit is, therefore, bad for non-Joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff in para No. 2 of Suit No. 3 of 1971 admitted that land of the shops is situate on Pipri Turra Road, which is a national highway. It is not denied in written statement and in para 2 of W. S. wherein it was stated that on either sides of metalled Road, the disputed shops exist. Patri land is part of road and vests in the State Government as has been held in the Division Bench case of Municipal Board, Agra v. Sudarshan Das, 1914 All 341-342. Section 5 of the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act , 1945, provides that :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, for the time being In force, no person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation, or lay out any means of access to a road in a controlled area except with the previous permission of the Collector in writing."
19. Word 'road' has been defined in Section 2 (6) of Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945, which means :
"as metalled road maintained by the State Government, the Government of India or by a local authority or a route demarcated by the State Government, Government of India or a local authority, with a view to constructing along it a metalled road, and includes a national highway."
Any construction on road, which includes a patri is punishable offence under Section 13 of the said Act. It is common knowledge that when road, which passes through abadi, people encroach upon patri which obstructs free flow of traffic. Public road is dedicated to the public and vests in public. The public has a right to use road without any hindrance. In this case. It is public duty of the Public Works Department and the State Government to keep the highway free from obstructions and hindrances. Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road is a busy highway connecting two big States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. It appears that the Public Works Department and the officers of the State Government have kept their eyes closed to the encroachments made by the plaintiffs by constructing a large number of shops on either sides of the road on patri in town of Renukoot. It is in public interest to keep the road free from obstructions and hindrances and keep it free from encroachments temporary or permanent for smooth running of traffic.
20. I, therefore, direct that Public Works Department and Executive Engineer of the area concerned to work with the Forest Department to remove all obstructions, encroachments, unauthorised constructions, etc. on either side of the patri to the extent of 110 feet from centre on either side of the metalled road within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Department. U. P. Government, Lucknow, for removing all such encroachments / obstructions/ unauthrised constructions etc. falling within 110 feet on either side from the centre of Robertsganj Pipri Turra Road passing through abadi of Renukoot Pipri within three months of the receipt of this judgment and report compliance within one month thereafter.
22. In the result, all twenty three (23) appeals are dismissed.
23. There will be no order as to costs.
24. A copy of this judgment will be kept on each of the 23 appeals and the Registrar will comply with the directions given above.