Smt. Munni vs Nagar Palika Parishad Bahjoi and Others

Hon''ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned senior counsel for the appellant at the admission stage.

This is plaintiff''s Second Appeal arising out of O.S. no. 6 of 1990 which was dismissed on 18.3.2010 by Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.) Court no. 1 Chandausi, (district Moradabad). Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff appellant filed Civil appeal no. 33 of 2010 which was dismissed on 26.9.2011 by A.D.J. Chandausi, District Moradabad hence this Second Appeal. 3. The suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute comprised in plot no. 680. Defendants no. 1 to 3 were Nagar Palika Parishad, Bahjoi, State of U.P. and Tehsildar. Defendants 4 to 11 were private persons i.e. Ganga Ram, sons of Chheda Lal deceased and sons of Sayeed Ahmad. The case of the plaintiff was that initially the land in dispute was situate in village Bahjoi and vested in its gram sabha; the gram sabha auctioned the property for residential purposes and 0.08 acre land (8 decimal) was purchased by the plaintiff for Rs. 50/- on 5.2.1973 and another area of 8 decimal in the same plot was purchased by Iqbal Husain husband of the plaintiff for Rs. 50/- on 12.2.1975. It was further pleaded that Sayeed Ahmad father of the defendants respondents nos. 9 to 11 had also purchased 8 decimal land from the said plot for Rs. 50/- on the same date which was exchanged by Iqbal Ahmad (husband of the plaintiff) from Sayeed Ahmad. It was further pleaded that on 16 decimal land of plaintiff and plaintiff''s husband a boundary wall was constructed. After the extension of the limits of Nagar Palika Bahjoi the land in dispute was included in the limits of Nagar Palika Bahjoi.

The defendants no. 1 to 3 out rightly denied any sale or allotment. They also contended that gaon sabha land could not be auctioned/sold. It was also pleaded that earlier proceedings u/s 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act (for eviction of unauthorized occupant) were initiated against the plaintiff and plaintiff was found to be unauthorized occupant and directed to be evicted and damages were also imposed. It was further asserted that land in dispute had been allotted for agricultural purposes to Mangal Sain, Sunder Lal, Manohar Lal and Tejpal sons of Chheda Lal and their names were recorded in the revenue record as lessees/ Pataders.

Both the courts below found that plaintiff completely failed to prove her case; that it was not shown that any proceedings for allotment were taken and that gaon sabha property can not be sold to any one.

I do not find least error in the findings recorded by the courts below. Plaintiff did not even plead that formalities of allotment were completed. She also did not lead any evidence in that regard. She could not show that either any list of persons belonging to preferential categories was prepared or that plaintiff, her husband and Sayeed Ahmad were in preferential category. Approval of S.D.O. was neither pleaded nor proved. Moreover, plaintiff came up with the case that she and her husband purchased the property from gaon sabha. There is no provision of sale of property by gaon sabha. Moreover, under Rule 115-O it is provided that not more than 250 sq. meter land can be allotted for residential purposes. Eight decimal land is about four hundred sq. yard i.e. more than 250 sq. meter. Moreover, different parts of the land for abadi purposes may not be allotted to the husband and wife separately. The land had been allotted to Mangal Sen and others for agricultural purposes and their names had also been entered in the revenue record. Name of the plaintiff or her husband or Sayeed Ahmad was never entered in the revenue record. Order of eviction and imposition of damages had already been passed against the plaintiff u/s 122B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act.

Accordingly, there is no error in the findings recorded by the courts below. No such question of law is involved in this appeal which has wrongly been decided by the courts below. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed under order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.