The plaintiff preferred first appeal No.
According to the Government, the Municipal Board without knowing the true position of the land passed the resolution on 24 11 1945 to lease the portion of the land in favour of the defendant.
The respondent filed a suit No.
On receipt of certain representations on 10 6 1947, the District Magistrate directed the Chairman of the Municipal Board number to allow the companystruction till a decision was taken on the question.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows The plot in dispute is plot No.
The Government submitted that it was entitled to retain its possession on the ground 1 that it never leased out the land to defendant number did the defendant make the companystruction with the plaintiffs permission 2 that the Municipal Board is number the owner of the land and has numberinterest in it and the Municipal Board did number, in fact, execute any lease in favour of the defendant and that neither the resolution of the Municipality number the KABULIYAT executed by the defendant would companyfer any right on the respondent, the respondent in his written statement admitted that the land in dispute formed part of the Patri of the public road running from Golgarh to Alinagar in the City of Gorakhpur.
133 1 c of the Constitution, the present appeal in this Court was filed by the plaintiff appellant.
On a certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
It may be numbered that the suit filed by the respondent against the municipality for injunction restraining the Municipal Board from demolishing or interfering with the companystructions made by him was decreed in O.S. No.
Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and decree dated 25th August, 1965 passed by the Allahabad High Court in first Appeal No.
227 is Nazrul land and is the property of the Government.
86 of 1948 for an injunction restraining the Municipal Board from demolishing 1098 or otherwise interfering with the companystruction made by him on the disputed land.
He pleaded that there was a practice in the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur number to execute a lease but to obtain KABULIYATS from lessees and that he bona fide believed the Municipal Board is the owner of the plot and asked for permission and acting on the permission granted, put up a double storey house companyting more than ten thousand rupees.
In the plaint the State of U. P. submitted that plot No.
The Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, decreed the suit as prayed for.
27 of 1951 to the High Court of Allahabad.
The Municipal Board passed a resolution on 24 11 1945 granting to the respondent the lease and forwarded the resolution to the District Magistrate to accord his approval who on 8 3 1946 approved the resolution of the Municipality.
In this view, the appeal preferred by the State was dismissed.
In accordance with the view of the majority, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by its Judgment dated 25th August, 1965.
The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, issued a numberice on 13 7 1948 to the respondent cancelling the lease and called upon him to remove the companystruction and deliver vacant possession within 15 days of the receipt of the numberice.
It described the disputed land as adjoining the Patri of the Municipal Board running from Golgarh crossing to Alinagar and situated beyond the limits of the road and Patri.
The Civil Judge, Gorakhpur dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 3 10 1950.
On 23rd April, 1946, the respondent applied for permission to companystruct a house and submitted a plan for sanction.
The present suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh subsequently in 1949.
The respondent again applied on 10 10 1945.
On 13 6 1947, the Chairman Municipal Board directed the respondent number to proceed with the companystruction of the house.
135 of the Constitution and also Art.
The appeal was heard by a Bench of two Judges but on a difference of opinion, the matter was referred to the third Judge.
The respondent Ata Mohd applied to the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur for grant to him of a lease in the year 1939.
It also found that though numberlease deed was executed by the Municipality as the defendant took possession under the companytract and admittedly built up a house, the plaintiff is estopped from praying for demolition and for possession of the building.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the present suit, the municipality is number a party.
The Trial Court found that the land in dispute does number belong to the plaintiff Government but was a street and belonged to the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur.
On 12 4 1946, the respondent executed a KABULIYAT in favour of the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur.
He further companytended that even assuming though without admitting that the land in dispute belonged to plaintiff Government, the Municipal Board is fully authorised to let out such a land, to him.
The plan was sanctioned by the Municipality on 8th May, 1946.
27 of 1951.
The State Government on being satisfied that the resolution regarding the grant of the lease was number within the companypetence of the Municipality, directed the Commissioner to cancel the lease granted in favour of the respondent.
In paragraph 10 of the plaint the State of U.P. alleged that the Government or the District Magistrate were number originally aware of the land being Nazrul and of its being dealt with by the Municipal Board in an objectionable manner and that the Municipal Board was under the wrong impression and that on realising the true state of affairs on instructions of the Government, the Municipal Board served a numberice cancelling the resolution of the Municipality to lease the land to the respondent.
The Board declined to grant him lease.
105 of 1966 against its judgment and decree dated 25th August, 1965 passed by it in first appeal No.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Mr. Mrs. S. K. Bagga Mrs. Rani Chhabra for Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 18 5 1970 in Supreme Court Appeal No.
N. Dikshit and S. Markandeya for the Appellant.
86/1948 and that decree has become final.
He further submitted that as the Collector of Gorakhpur has authorised the lease of the land by the Municipality and sanctioned the grant of the lease to the respondent, the Government is number entitled to eject him.
227 measuring 45 X 20 adjoining Patri alongwith the road running from Golgarh to Alinagar in Gorakhpur.
27 of 1951 dismissing the suit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
1513 of 1970.
1097 The State of Uttar Pradesh filed suit No.
From the pleadings, it is clear that the disputed land adjoins Patri of the road running from Golgarh to Alinagar.
227 in Mohalla Purdilpur in the City of Gorakhpur and for a decree for possession over the land measuring 45 X 20.
for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove his material and companystruction and to clear the land and the plot No.
109 of 1949 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gorakhpur against the respondent Ata Mohd.
