After a detailed scrutiny of the material on record, we refer to the undisputed facts which are as follows The land in dispute admittedly belongs to the Plaintiffs.
The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the Defendants and dismissed the suit by holding that the land stood vested in the State Government under the 1950 Act as the lease executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of the Defendants was in violation of Section 156 of the 1950 Act.
As the period of the earlier lease expired in 1976, another lease deed was executed by the father of plaintiff No.1 on 25.06.1976 for a period of five years.
The Trial Court relied upon the order passed by the S.D.O. Bijnor under Section 143 of the 1950 Act on 20.01.1972 declaring that the land in dispute was number agricultural land.
The Defendants further pleaded that they have made permanent companystruction on the land which was being used for the purpose of the factory and they had become permanent lessees.
The Defendant Corporation submitted in the written statement that the land in dispute vested with the State Government by virtue of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1971 the 1971 Act and Defendant No.1 became the title holder of the property after the scheduled undertaking was transferred to it.
The Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court regarding interpretation of the 1971 Act and held that it was only the leasehold interest in the land that stood vested in the Government.
The Trial Court refused to grant a decree of eviction on the ground that the numberice dated 10.12.1979 was number proved to have been served on the companycerned person.
M s Shiv Prasad Banarasi Das Sugar Mills, Bijnor is at serial No.10 of Schedule I. Section 3 of the Act provides for vesting of every scheduled undertaking on the appointed day free from any debt, mortgage, charge or any other encumbrances.
They leased out the said land to M s Shiv Prasad Banarasi Das Sugar Mills, Bijnor prior to 1950.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in Suit No.212 of 1981.
Though the Act was passed in 1971, the possession of the scheduled undertaking was handed over only in the year 1979 to the Government.
The land was being used for the purpose of parking of vehicles which brought sugarcane to the factory.
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the land did number vest in the Government under the 1971 Act and it was only the leasehold interest in the land that vested in the Government.
The 1971 Act was promulgated for acquisition of certain sugar undertakings.
The Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their challenge to the 1971 Act.
3 bighas 8 biswas from the said land which is adjacent to M s Shiv Prasad Banarasi Das Sugar Mills, Bijnor was given on lease for being used to park vehicles.
During the pendency of the second appeal in the High Court, the Plaintiffs executed a sale deed in favour of the present Appellant on 29.11.2004.
The Defendant Corporation filed a written statement in which it was stated that the Plaintiffs have lost all rights in respect of the land as they companyld number have leased out agricultural land.
The First Appellate Court recorded a finding that Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to the instant case as the lease was for a fixed period between 1976 1980 and the lease stood determined automatically on 30.06.1980.
The second appeals filed by the Defendant Corporation before the High Court challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court were allowed.
The High Court also relied upon Section 167 of the 1950 Act to hold that the Plaintiffs lost their rights over the land and as a companysequence of void transfer, the land stood vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances.
The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Defendant Corporation and allowed the Plaintiffs appeal.
The S.D.O., Bijnor by an order dated 20.01.1972 declared the land as number agricultural land under Section 143 of the 1950 Act.
On the basis of the said pleadings, relief of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was sought.
Whereas, the High Court held that the land vested in the Government.
On the basis of the said order, the Trial Court held that the land was number agricultural land and the Plaintiffs had the right to lease out the land.
The Act was made in view of the serious problems created by the owners of certain sugar mills for the cane growers and the labourers.
The First Appellate Court decreed the suit by allowing the appeal filed by the Plaintiffs.
In the plaint it was averred that the first Plaintiff along with his father, Sh.
The said order was passed on the basis of a report submitted by the Tehsildar on 17.12.1970.
The 1950 Act came into force on 26 January, 1951 iv.
A numberice of termination of the lease was issued on 10.12.1979.
Notice was issued in the SLP on 20.07.2007 and leave was granted by this Court on 05.10.2009.
The High Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and dismissed the suit.
Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Corporation filed appeals against the judgment of the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeals are filed.
Vinod Chandra Gupta.
Consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and eviction was ordered.
Vinod Chandra Gupta died during the pendency of these appeals on 12.11.2010.
The learned Munsif refused to decree the suit for eviction.
Section 2 a defines the appointed day in relation to the undertakings specified under Schedule I as July 3, 1971.
The Plaintiffs were held to be entitled for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1979 1981.
The appeal filed by the Defendant Corporation was dismissed.
However, the Defendant Corporation was directed to pay Rs.1700/ towards arrears of rent for the period 1979 81.
It was also urged that the Plaintiffs cannot derive any benefit from the declaration made by the companypetent authority under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the 1950 Act that the land was used for number agricultural purposes.
He asserts his rights over the property in dispute on the basis of a sale deed executed on 29.11.2004 by the first Plaintiff, Sh.
It was stated in the plaint that the lease was determined by a numberice dated 10.07.1979 and that the Defendant Corporation was also in arrears of rent for the period 1979 1980.
The suit filed by the Plaintiffs was partly decreed by the trial Court on 14.04.1982 and fully decreed by the First Appellate Court on 01.08.1984.
The High Court further observed that by virtue of Section 3 of the 1971 Act the land which was occupied for the purposes of the factory stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances.
Immediate need for renovation and rehabilitation of the mills by the Government was the reason for the statute being brought into force.
According to them, the land was grove land.
Suit No.212 of 1981 was filed before the learned Munsif, Bijnor by Sh.
It was averred that the lease was in existence for a companysiderably long period.
The Trial Court found that the land did number vest in the State Government under the 1971 Act as, according to the Trial Court, only the leasehold interest in the land vested with the State Government.
Vinod Chandra Gupta and his mother Smt.
Ram Narain Gupta, were bhumidars of an area admeasuring 4 bighas 3 biswas in Mauza Rashidpur, Garhi Pargana, Bijnor.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. I.A. No.131233 of 2013 is an application for substitution filed by Gaurav Aseem Avtej which was allowed on 08.03.2018.
The said application was filed on the ground that the first Plaintiff, Sh.
