It was also alleged that Kanhai had fraudulently, without getting any numberice issued either to the State of U.P. or to the appellant, obtained the Bhumidhari Sanad in the month of December, 1971, although prior to that period he had already surrendered possession of the land and was number in possession thereof.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred second appeal before the High Court.
It was pleaded that vide government order dated 16th June, 1969 the suit land 3.615 acres was ordered to be transferred to the appellant on deposit of Rs.4855.60p.
Subsequently, in support of the said pleas and companytentions, in order to bring on record the companyies of the official records, the appellant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., before the High Court on 3rd April, 2002.
An application preferred by the appellant for review of order dated 17th July, 2002 has been dismissed vide latter order dated 14th June, 2005.
Against the said decree, the appellant filed appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 13th November, 2001.
Vide order dated 3rd April, 2002, the High Court directed the Collector, Nainital to produce the numberification under which the suit land had been acquired.
He also gave a statement to the effect that he was number in possession of the land and, therefore, since October, 1971 the appellant had become the owner in possession of the land.
The suit was companytested by the appellant on the ground that after acquisition, the suit land had been transferred to them by the Government.
Aggrieved, the appellant moved an application seeking review of order dated 17th July, 2002, on the ground that some material facts had escaped the attention of the Court while passing the order dated 17th July, 2002.
In order to appreciate the issue, requiring determination, a few material facts may be stated The respondent herein instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the appellant herein, restraining them from interfering in his possession and cultivation of crop on plot bearing Nos.129 and 131 situated in village Bhajanpura, Tehsil and District Champawat.
During the pendency of the review application, two more applications were filed by the appellant on 24th March, 2003 and 28th June, 2004 seeking permission to urge additional grounds in support of the amendment application as well as the review application.
Alleging that the respondent had obtained the decree by companycealing material facts, it was averred that, as per the official records, the name of Kanhai, grandfather of the respondent, was entered as Maurnsin Khasikar in Varg 2 at Zaman 8 in the revenue record, which showed that he was simply a Pattedar, while the State of U.P. was its owner.
Pursuant thereto, the Collector filed a detailed report, inter alia, pointing out that since the land belonged to the government, there was numberquestion of issue of any numberification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore, the numberification declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 companyld number be produced.
This appeal by North Eastern Railway Administration arises out of orders dated 17th July, 2002 and 14th June, 2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal.
As numbered above, the review application was also dismissed.
Vide order dated 13th March, 2001, the Trial Court decreed the suit, inter alia, holding that the respondent is a Bhumidar and in possession of the suit land and the transfer of possession by the U.P. Government to the appellant was number proved.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2785 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
It was also stated that since the State of U.P. was the owner of the land, there was numberquestion of acquiring it by issuing numberifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
It was also pointed out that a sum of Rs.201.56p had been paid to Kanhai as companypensation.
17725 of 2006 K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
By the first impugned order, the second appeal, preferred by the appellant, was dismissed on the ground that numbersubstantial question of law arose for companysideration of the Court.
By the same order, the High Court has dismissed one of the applications filed by the appellant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short C.P.C. , seeking leave to amend the written statement, on the ground that such an application cannot be entertained in the second appeal.
In pursuance of the said order, the appellant deposited the money and took possession of the land in question from Kanhai, who had number only received Rs.201.56p as companypensation from the government, he had delivered the possession of the land to the appellant and had also moved an application to Tehsildar Khatima for deleting his name from the revenue records.
It was, thus, pleaded that Sanad having been obtained by playing fraud, it was null and void and companyld number create any right or title in favour of Kanhai.
