JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are claiming the following reliefs : "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the Khewat/plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 situated within the jurisdiction of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilakhua, Ghaziabad except the part of plot No. 2149 comprising area 3410 hectare, which was earlier acquired by the State Government by issuing notifications under Section 4 on 24.11.2005 and under Section 6 on 23.6.2006. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over Khewat/plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 situated within the jurisdiction of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilakhua, Ghaziabad except the part of plot No. 2149 comprising area 3410 hectare. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to identify and demarcate the area, which was covered under the Notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.11.2005 and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.6.2006 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem fit and property in the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) Award the cost of the writ petition throughout to the petitioners against the respondents. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby calling the entire record of the proceedings and action taken by the respondents with regard to the demolition of the standing structure and unit of M/s Swatantra Bharat Paper Mills on the land under Khasra No. 2136, 2149 M and 2111/2 of village Pilakhua, Hapur and the profess of alleged resumption of the subject land and thereafter quash the impugned order of resumption No. 3980/231/07-08 dated 20.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut with respect to the resumption of land of the petitioner falling under Khasra No. 2136 and 2149 M under village Pilakhua within the Minicipal Limit Pilakhua. (vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to freeze all the amounts of the compensation/value of the land received in lieu of the said land under resumption and acquisition including the land of the petitioner and not to disburse the same till the disposal of the present writ petition. (viii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the respondents not to allow any activity on the subject land of the petitioner covered under the present writ petition and further to submit the inventory list of the assets removed under demolition and to account for the same." 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : (1) The petitioner No. 1 private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 of which petitioner No. 2 is the Director (both the petitioners hereinafter called as "petitioners"). The petitioners are claiming the ownership and possession over plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111 isituated at village Pilakhua, Hapur District Ghaziabad on the basis of the registered sale-deed dated 7.10.1953 which was duly executed, presented and finally registered on 14.10.1953, on which as per sale-deed, a paper mill was constructed by the vendors in the year, 1951 mainly on plot No. 2136 and 2149 and boundary wall and godown were constructed on plot No. 2111. Details of the standing structure, fitting and fixtures of machines are in the sale-deed which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The total area of the aforesaid plots were 8 Bighas and 11 Biswas. (2) The sale-deed shows that vendors, namely, Lala Jagan Nath, Lala Amar Nath and Lala Magan Nath all sons of Late Lala Gokal Chand purchased the aforesaid plots from Mrs. R.H. Crosbite resident of village Mussooree Pargana Dasna, Tehsil Ghaziabad District Meerut by sale-deed dated 14th day of December, 1950 and registered as document 1762 in Book No. 1 Volume No. 795 on pages 260 to 263 on 21st day of December, 1950. It is the case of the petitioners that manufacturing of paper and board continued till the year, 1988 and on account of loss the same was closed. It appears that Hapur Pilakhua Development Authority, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as “Authority”), respondent No. 3 has prepared Pilakhua Master Plan, 2001-2021, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that manufacturing of paper and board continued till the year, 1988 and on account of loss the same was closed. It appears that Hapur Pilakhua Development Authority, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as “Authority”), respondent No. 3 has prepared Pilakhua Master Plan, 2001-2021, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioners contended that in the said plan on the plot in dispute the construction of paper mill has been shown. (3) It appears that the Central Government intended to establish a Textile Centers across the Country and for this purpose Pilakhua has been identified as one of the site. In consequence thereof, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the respondent No. 1 on 24.11.2005 and subsequently, Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.6.2006. Under the Notification a part of the land belonging to the petitioners’ company, which was situated in Khasra No. 2149 having an area of 0.3410 hectare was acquired. The petitioners challenged the said acquisition in Writ Petition No. 37893 of 2006 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.8.2008. The said order of this Court has become final. The case of the petitioners are that although only 0.3410 hectare land of Khasra No. 2149 had only been acquired by the State Government, the authorities have started demolition of the entire construction standing over plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and intended to take the possession and when the authorities have not considered the grievance of the petitioners, present writ petition has been filed. (4) It appears that in exercise of powers under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide impugned order of resumption No. 3980/231/07-08 dated 20.9.2008 has resumed the land of the petitioners falling under Khasra No. 2136 and 2149 of village Pilakhua treating the said land in possession of Gaon Sabha. (5) It appears that since there was a small construction in the form of boundary wall and a godown in plot No. 2111, petitioners were apprehended by the respondents to dispossess from the said plot, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration as Original Suit No. 179 of 1973 under Section 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act claiming the title and ownership over the said plot. The declaration of the ownership was sought on the ground that the petitioners had purchased the paper mill consisting of Building, plant, machinery and land of plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111/2 area about 8 Biswas 11 Biswas from its previous owners Jagan Nath, Magan Nath and Amar Nath vide sale-deed dated 7.10.1953. It was contended that the building of the factory was erected and necessary machinery were installed in the year, 1950-51 and the aforesaid factory building was being in existence on the spot since then. The main building of the factory was on plot Nos. 2149, 2136 and plot No. 2111/2 was kept open by the owners for being used as a godown for the paper mill, for stocking scrap meant for paper pulp, and for drying the products as well as for placing other materials, meant for loading or which were unloaded from the Railway wagons. To facilitate, a room was constructed in or about the center of the plot and also constructed a boundary wall inasmuch as the said plot was enclosed by the boundary wall and had also a room, it vested in the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). The said plot was not lying Banjar or otherwise and was covered by the building at the time of enforcement of the said Act. Even otherwise the said plot was used as appurtenant to the main factory building for the purposes connected with the factory and as such it had vested with the owners thereof under Section 9 of the Act; In any case the plaintiff had been in exclusive possession thereof and has become absolute owner of the same by adverse possession since the year, 1950; The defendants have no concern whatsoever with the ownership or possession of the said plot; By some mistake the said plot was entered as Banjar in the revenue record. The said entry is incorrect. The defendants were approached to correct the said entry but they paid no heed; The defendants under pressure of some persons inimical to the plaintiff have started making claim to the said plot and to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession for which they are not entitled. 3. The said entry is incorrect. The defendants were approached to correct the said entry but they paid no heed; The defendants under pressure of some persons inimical to the plaintiff have started making claim to the said plot and to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession for which they are not entitled. 3. Defendant No. 1, was the State of Uttar Pradesh and defendant No. 2, was Municipal Board, Pilakhua contested the case on the following grounds referred in the order itself as follows : “The defendant No. 1 has contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the plot in suit. The plot Nos. 2149, 2136 and 2111/2 were Banjar at the time of the commencement of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and on the abolition of Zamindari, they have vested in the State of U.P. and then in the Gaon Sabha concerned and the plaintiffs possession over the plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 is illegal and steps are being taken to remove the same. It is further pleaded that the suit is under valued and the Court fees paid is insufficient that the suit should have been filed in a revenue Court, that it is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. That the notice served under Section 80, CPC is invalid, that the sale-deed relied upon by the plaintiff is farzi. Defendant No. 2 has raised plea identical to those of defendant No. 1 and as such it would be unnecessary to repeat them. It is also pleaded that on abolition of the Zamindari on the land in suit vested in the State of U.P. and then in defendant No. 2, that the paper mill or any building thereof did not exists in the land in suit in the year, 1950-51. Jagan Nath, Magan Nath and Amar Nath were not entitled to sell the same and the alleged sale-deed is fraudulent and Farzi. It is also pleaded that the area of plot No. 2111/2 is 7 bighas, 2 biswas and the same is Banjar. It is not clear from the plaint as to about which portion the suit has been filed. In the absence of any demarcation the suit is not maintainable.” 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, eight issues were framed. Issue No. 3 was whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot in suit. It is not clear from the plaint as to about which portion the suit has been filed. In the absence of any demarcation the suit is not maintainable.” 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, eight issues were framed. Issue No. 3 was whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot in suit. By order dated 3.8.1976 the said suit was decreed and it has been declared that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the plot in Khasra No. 2111/2 situated in town of Pilakhua and marked by red lines in the plaint map. The plaint map shall form part of the decree. 5. Some of the relevant findings which has a material bearing in present case are as follows : “On consideration of the entire evidence on record, I am inclined to believe that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in suit and the Kotha and the boundary walls on the land in suit were raised by the owners of the papers Mill. Ext. 14 is the copy of the sale-deed dated 18.12.1950 executed on behalf of Smt. R.H. Crosbite in favour of Lala Jagan Nath in respect of plot Nos. 2136, 2111 and 2149. The sale-deed goes to indicate that the vendor was owner of the said plots. Nothing contrary to it has been shown in the evidence of the parties, This sale deed had come into existence before the abolition of Zamindari. That being so the Zamindar was entitled to transfer the land in suit. It appears that the purchasers had constructed a paper mill and had started their business under the name and style of Seth Gosal Chand Paper and Board Mill. The documents on record go to indicate that the said Mill had purchased building materials and other articles in the year, 1951. Exts. 18 to 21, 23, 25 to 27 and 29 to 35 are certain receipts and invoices to show that the said Mill had purchased articles through ghose documents in the year 1951. Ext. 22 is a letter dated 17.7.1951 from the provincial from the Steel Controller allotting 65 tons of cement to the said Mills. Ext. 24 dated 26.7.1951 is an authorisation for cement by the Regional Honorary Cement Advisor to the said mills. Ext. 36 dated 5.2.1951 is the letter from the Provincial Iron and Steel Controller rebasing cement to the said Mills. Ext. 24 dated 26.7.1951 is an authorisation for cement by the Regional Honorary Cement Advisor to the said mills. Ext. 36 dated 5.2.1951 is the letter from the Provincial Iron and Steel Controller rebasing cement to the said Mills. All these documents land strength to the plaintiffs version that the paper Mill was construct in the year, 1951. Ext. 37 is a letter dated 17.7.1951 from the Chief Inspector of Boilers fixing 23.5.1951 for the inspection of the premises of the Mill. This document also goes to show that the Mill had come into existence by the said date. Ext. 38 is a certificate from the Chief Inspector Boilers permitting the paper mill to run the Boiler for the period 4.10.1952 to 3.10.1953. This comment also goes to indicate that the mill had started production by the year, 1952. Ext. 8 is a letter dated 7.6.1952 from the Chief Inspector of Factories indicating the inaccuracies in the area calculated by the paper mill. However, this letter goes to indicate that the paper mill had already been constructed by that time. Ext. 17 is a letter issued in the month of September, 1952 by the Chief Inspector of Boilers fixing 4.10.1952 for inspection of the premises of the mill. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to believe that the building of the paper mill had been constructed in the year, 1951. No evidence to the contrary has been left by the defendants. In the other hand Kalyan Singh, D.W. 1 is unable to state as to from which year the mill was constructed. It is admitted that the main building of the paper mill stands on plot Nos. 2136 and 2149. A public road intervene the said building and the disputed plot. Dharam Prakash P.W. 1 has stated that a map of the main building was submitted by the paper mill to the Inspector of Factories. The plot in suit was not included in that map. It has, therefore, been argued on behalf of the defendants that the land in suit was lying Banjar and that no constructions had been made by the plaintiff on the same. I am not inclined to accept this argument. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the boundary walls had been raised over the land in suit by Lala Jagan Nath and others, who were the predecessors in title of the plaintiff. I am not inclined to accept this argument. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the boundary walls had been raised over the land in suit by Lala Jagan Nath and others, who were the predecessors in title of the plaintiff. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the kotha over the land in suit was not built by predecessor in title of the plaintiff and the same has been built by the plaintiff. I am inclined to believe that the land in suit is being used by the plaintiff mill and as such the said land is appurtenant to the building of the factory. Learned counsel for the defendants has invited my attention towards the revenue record. Ext. A2 is extract of Khasra relating to the years 1359 F. In this Khasra the plot in suit has been recorded as usar. Ext. A3 to A11 are the extracts of khasra relating to the years 1367 F to 1375 F. In all those extracts the plot in suit has been recorded as usar. Ext. A1 is the extract of Khatauni relating to the years 1372 F to 1376 F. In this extract also the plot in suit has been recorded as usar. The defendant have also filed a C.H. Form No. 5-B. In this document also the disputed plot has been recorded as usar. On the basis of these entries it has been argument on behalf of the defendant that the land in suit was lying barren on the abolition of zamindari and as such it had vested in the State of U.P. and subsequently in the Municipal Board. No notification has been filed to show that the land in suit as actually vested in the Municipal Board. The revenue entries relied upon by the defendants, in my opinion, are of little consequence because it has been found that the predecessor in title of the plaintiff and purchased the land in suit before the abolition of zamindari and had bounded the same by raising the boundary walls. The boundary walls had been raised with a view to use disputed land for the purposes of the Mill. Therefore, the entry of usar in the revenue records is of no assistance to the defendants. It would be proper to mention here that the plot Nos. The boundary walls had been raised with a view to use disputed land for the purposes of the Mill. Therefore, the entry of usar in the revenue records is of no assistance to the defendants. It would be proper to mention here that the plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 also continued to be recorded as usar although the plaintiff mills have come into existence on those plots since long. It would also be proper to mention here that the plot in suit was left out of consolidation operations. This fact is borne out from paper No. 114-C by the plaintiff. For the reasons stated above, I find that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plot in suit. The issue is decided in the affirmative.” 6. The aforesaid judgment and order of the Additional Civil Judge was challenged by the State Government before the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Appeal No. 406 of 1976. The said appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 19.11.1996. Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilakhua, Ghaziabad filed second appeal No. 973 of 1999 against the order of Additional District Judge before this Court, which has been dismissed vide order dated 5.10.2007. This Court observed as follows : “In view of the aforesaid decisions, it has to be held that the land contained in plot No. 2111/2, which was surrounded by a boundary wall and had a constructed room, was a land appurtenant and, therefore, did not vest in the State or the Gaon Sabha. In fact, it vested under Section 9 of the Act in the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Courts below.” 7. The argument of the respondents that the said land was recorded as Banjar land, therefore, it vested in the State and then in Gaon Sabha has not been accepted in view of the categorical findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 8. Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid order of this Court has been dismissed on 18.2.2008 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. 10. 9. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owner of plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 except 0.3410 hectare land of plot No. 2149 which have been acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, by virtue of sale-deed dated 7.10.1953 duly registered on 14.10.1953 on which paper mill was established by the vendors in the year, 1950-51. He submitted that the main building of the paper mill was constructed mainly on plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 wherein machinery etc. have been installed and in plot No. 2111/2 only boundary wall was constructed for the purposes of storage and a room was also constructed and rest of the area was open land. He submitted that since plot No. 2111/2 was mainly open land, officers of the respondents from time to time were disputing the title, therefore, the petitioners filed Original Suit No. 179 of 1973 for the declaration of the ownership and possession over the plot No. 2111/2 on the allegation that they have purchased the paper mill with building, plant and machinery alongwith plot Nos. 2149, 2136 and 2111/2 from previous owners, namely, Jagan Nath, Magan Nath and Amar Nath vide sale-deed dated 7.10.1953. It was contended that factory building was mainly constructed in plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and in plot No. 2111/2 boundary wall and a room was constructed to store the goods and for drying purposes etc. and was the land appurtenant to plot Nos. 2136 and 2149. The construction over plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111/2 were made by the erstwhile owner in the year, 1950-51. He submitted that on the basis of the evidences adduced by the petitioners and the respondents parties, Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad held that the construction of the factory was made in the year 1950-51 by the erstwhile owner over plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and the Kotha over the land in suit was built by the plaintiff-petitioners. It has been held that the entry of usar in the revenue record is of no assistance to the defendants and plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and the Kotha over the land in suit was built by the plaintiff-petitioners. It has been held that the entry of usar in the revenue record is of no assistance to the defendants and plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 also continues to be recorded as usar although the plaintiffs mainly have come into existence of those plots since long. It is submitted that the findings of the Additional Civil Judge are finding of fact based on the evidences on record and the said findings have become final inasmuch as the State Government and the Municipal Board have accepted the said findings. The said findings have been affirmed by the higher Court and same has been accepted by the State Government and by the Municipal Board, therefore, it is not open to the State Government to argue against the findings recorded in the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad as they are binding upon them. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Srimati Raj Lakshmi Dass and others v. Banamali Sen and others, AIR 1953 SC 33 and K. Ethirajan (Dead) by LRs v. Lakshmi and others, (2003) 10 SCC 578 . 11. Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submitted as follows : Petitioner has no right over the land in question : 12. The plots in question admittedly were recorded as usar (non-cultivable land) and is governed by the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The statement of fact to this effect contained in para 33 of the counter affidavit has not been denied by the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 179 of 1973, claiming benefit of Section 9 of the provisions of the Act of 1950. Thus, in view of the petitioner’s own admission with regard to applicability of the Act of 1950 over the land, by claiming its benefit which the petitioner claims was also included in the same sale-deed and in view of un-rebutted allegation in para 33 and other paragraphs of the counter, the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1950 is not in dispute. 13. 13. The State of U.P. issued notification No. 1.7.1952, under Section 4 of the Act of 1950, as a consequence whereof, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or documents, or rights, title or interest of all intermediaries ceases by virtue of Section 6 of the Act, except the rights which are specifically created by the Act itself. The petitioner has miserably failed to disclose as to what kind of rights was acquired in its favour or in favour of its vendors, under the Act. It is undisputed that petitioner or its vendors were not recorded in the record of rights and the land continued to remain recorded as uncultivable State land in 1356 Fasli (corresponding to the year, 1949) and 1359 Fasli (corresponding to the year, 1952) which attaches finality to the entry under the Act of 1950. No rights whatsoever were created under the Act, in favour of the petitioner or its vendors. Since, the petitioners vendors themselves have no right, in law, over the plots in question, they could not transfer any valid rights in favour of the petitioner. Even, otherwise, no right can be claimed on the basis of sale-deed in view of consequence flowing from Section 6 of the Act and the petitioners has not shown as to what rights got created in its favour under the Act. The petitioner thus, has no right over the land in question. 14. The remedy of the petitioner, at best, could have been to institute a suit for declaration, before the revenue Court, under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950. This was not done, despite having knowledge of the fact that plots in question were throughout recorded as usar, belonging to State, and the petitioner was not recorded as occupant in any of the categories, which could enable it to claim any right under the Act of 1950. In the absence of any declaration, with regard to rights and status of the petitioner, by appropriate competent Court, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition. The writ petition cannot be a forum for declaring the rights if any, of the petitioner, over the Gaon Sabha/State land. The disputed title also cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition cannot be a forum for declaring the rights if any, of the petitioner, over the Gaon Sabha/State land. The disputed title also cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Likhi Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (1) AWC 521 and the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 1018 and North Eastern Railway v. Chhedi Lal and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 609. Petitioner has no locus to maintain the writ petition : 15. The order of resumption dated 20.9.2008, merely resumes the land in question, which belong to the State, from the Management of Nagar Palika and transfers it to the respondent authority. The only parties concerned by the decision is the Nagar Palika Parishad or the State Government and the petitioner, and the writ petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 16. The respondent authority relied upon the observation contained in para 7 of the Division Bench Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur in Likhi Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(1) AWC 521 . 17. The decree of the civil Court cannot be the basis for the petitioner to establish any right. 18. The suit of the petitioner being Original Suit No. 179 of 1973 was filed for a declaration of right over plot No. 2111/1. The plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 (subject matter of dispute in the writ petition) were not the subject-matter of suit property. Since no relief was claimed in respect of the plot No. 2136 and 2149, therefore, no occasion arose for the parties to lead any evidence in respect thereof, as such, no adjudication having been made, any incidental observation made by the Court, which is not the subject-matter of dispute of the said suit, cannot be treated to be an adjudication in respect of the plot Nos. 2136 and 2149. 19. 2136 and 2149. 19. The original suit No. 179 of 1973 was filed, claiming the land of plot No. 2111/2 to have been settled with the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 1950, on the ground that the said plot was a land appurtenant, and the trial Court, as well as the High Court in Second Appeal, specifically granted benefit of Section 9 to the plaintiff. The question as to whether plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 stood settled with the petitioner, on account of the resumed land being a land appurtenant was not the question involved in suit No. 179 of 1973, nor any observation made in the said suit regarding existence of factory building over plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 would not amount to a declaration of the plots being declared as land appurtenant. The petitioner, was required to seek declaration, from the competent Court i.e. Revenue Court, with regard to plots in question, wherein the question of granting relief under Section 9 of the Act of 1950, could be gone into, and whether any part of the resumed land could be held to be settled with the petitioner, on account of it being land appurtenant could be decided, after adjudicating as to whether any building existed upon plot No. 2136 and 2149 and also as to what extent of land could be held to be land appurtenant. This having not been done, the petitioner cannot claim in writ proceedings, to grant declaration of settlement of resumed land under Section 9 of the Act in favour of the petitioner by necessary implication. 20. The respondents have specifically denied existence of any building over the resumed land of plot Nos. 2136 and 2149. The factory building, as claimed by the petitioner, situated over portion of land of plot No. 2149, which stood acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and challenge made against it had failed, with dismissal of writ petition vide judgment dated 13.8.2008. Since, no building stood over the resumed land, and the resumed land was open piece of land, the question of it getting settled under Section 9 with the petitioner or its vendor also does not arise. 21. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is a self contained Code, which provides for rights and also forum for adjudication of it. 21. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is a self contained Code, which provides for rights and also forum for adjudication of it. The forum created under the Act, for settlement of rights under the Act is the Revenue Court. It is only the Revenue Court which is competent to make declaration, with regard to the status and/or right acquired under the Act. The proposition that declaration over land covered under the Act of 1950, can be granted only by Revenue Court is no longer res integra. Whenever a person, not recorded, over the land, seeks a declaration of its right, over the land which vested in the State by virtue of abolition of Zamindari vide Notification dated 1.7.1952, it is only the Revenue Court which has the jurisdiction to grant such relief. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in Kamla Prasad and others v. Krishna Kant Pathak and others, 2007(4) SCC 213 (Paragraph 13 to 17). 22. The Civil Court, is not the competent Court to grant declaration of right under the provisions of the Act of 1950, especially when the land is recorded as usar and vests in State. The decree of the Civil Court, granting declaration of ownership over such land, in Original Suit No. 179 of 1973 is otherwise wholly without jurisdiction and thus, has no evidentially value, particularly when the plots in question were not covered by it. It is interesting to note that in Original Suit No. 179 of 1973, issue with regard to jurisdiction was framed as issue No. 4 at page 128 of the writ petition and the finding about it is at page 138 of the writ petition. While, dealing with the objection to jurisdiction of Civil Court on account of Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, the Court has held that since, no declaration in respect of right has been sought, thus, the Civil Court has jurisdiction. However, the Civil Court, after so observing while dealing with issue No. 4, has actually granted declaration of right of the plaintiff over the land, on account of benefit under Section 9 of the Act. Thus further reduces the evidentiary value of the decree of the Civil Court, which is wholly in excess of jurisdiction. 23. However, the Civil Court, after so observing while dealing with issue No. 4, has actually granted declaration of right of the plaintiff over the land, on account of benefit under Section 9 of the Act. Thus further reduces the evidentiary value of the decree of the Civil Court, which is wholly in excess of jurisdiction. 23. Thus, it is submitted that as the decree of the Civil Court is without jurisdiction and is a nullity, apart from the fact that it does not relate to the plot in question, it cannot form basis for any valid claim by the petitioner. 24. The land resumed is for a very important Public Project, which has already been delayed considerably, due to earlier litigation by the petitioner. The project has to be completed by 31.3.2009, failing which the Central Government would withdraw its contribution to the scheme. The land situates on the main road and is virtually a gateway for the entire project. Any further interference at the instance of the petitioner would adversely effect vital public interest. Had the petitioner been having any right over the land, it could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. However, as the land vested in the State, it has rightly been resumed. 25. The petitioner at no point of time was recorded in the record of rights (Khatauni), nor the petitioner’s vendor’s were recorded over it. It seems that by manipulation some interpolation has been made in 1995 showing in khasra (Document of possession) that petitioners factory is in possession from prior to 1359 fasli (prior to 1952). Since, the petitioners purchased the plot on 7.10.1953, it could not be in possession prior to 1952, which shows apparent manipulation and disentitles the petitioner to any relief. The petitioner has applied for mutation before the Revenue Court in the year, 2005-06, which was also dismissed in default and only after resumption, the matter has been remanded in appeal. The petitioner having failed to establish its right, if any, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction for declaring its non-existent rights. 26. Since, the petitioner has failed to make out any case, and the public interest demands that important Textile Centre Project may come up at the earlier, thus, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with costs. 27. Learned Standing Counsel has adopted the argument of Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra. 26. Since, the petitioner has failed to make out any case, and the public interest demands that important Textile Centre Project may come up at the earlier, thus, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with costs. 27. Learned Standing Counsel has adopted the argument of Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra. However, he very fairly stated that so far as plot No. 2111/2 is concerned, respondents have no case. 28. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the pleadings which the respondents are taking in this Court have been taken in the suit and their contentions have been rejected. 29. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 30. In the case of Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others v. Barnamali Sen and others, (supra), Apex Court held that the test of res judicata is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in the two cases. It could not be said that the judgment of Privy Council could not operate as res judicata against the present contention of the Sons and the mortgagees, about the title to the four anna share of Raj Ballav’s Estate, because the subject-matter of those proceedings was the compensation money and not the property that was the subject-matter of the present suit. 31. In the case of K. Ethirajan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Lakshmi and others (supra), Apex Court held that the principal of res judicata cannot apply because in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit the whole property is the subject-matter, cannot be accepted. The principle of res judicata under Section 11, C.P.C. is attracted where issues directly and substantially involved between the same parties in the previous and subsequent suit are the same, may be, in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit, the whole property is the subject-matter. 32. The principle of res judicata under Section 11, C.P.C. is attracted where issues directly and substantially involved between the same parties in the previous and subsequent suit are the same, may be, in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit, the whole property is the subject-matter. 32. In the case of Likhi Ram alias Moola and another v. State of U.P. and others (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents Division Bench of this Court held that with effect from 1.7.1952 all rights, title and interest in every estate and in all sub-soils in such estates stood vested with the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Act provided that at any time after the publication of the notification referred to in Section 4, the State Government may, by general or special order to be published in the manner prescribed, declare that as from the date to be specified in this behalf, all or any of the things specified in sub-section (1) like lands (except lands for the time being comprised in any holding or grove), trees (other than trees in holding or grove or abadi), fisheries, tanks, ponds, pathways and abadi sites etc., which had vested in the State under the Act, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha or any other local authority established for the whole or part of the village. In the said case under Section 117 of the Act by the order dated 23.8.1986 has resumed the land which was vested to the Gaon Sabha. The validity of the same was challenged in the writ petition, which has been dismissed. It was found that the petitioners filed suit under Section 229-B of the Act to get a declaration of their right but they withdraw the same. The rights of the petitioners cannot be declared in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as the same requires examination or oral and documentary evidence. The U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act provides a remedy, namely, filing of a suit under Section 229-B which the petitioners did not pursue as they had no case. 33. The rights of the petitioners cannot be declared in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as the same requires examination or oral and documentary evidence. The U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act provides a remedy, namely, filing of a suit under Section 229-B which the petitioners did not pursue as they had no case. 33. In the case of North Eastern Railway (HQ) through its General Manager, Gorakhpur and another v. Chhedi Lal and others (supra), Apex Court held that the title to the property is serious in dispute and has to be investigated and determined on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. Such a decision cannot properly be taken in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can appropriately be adjudicated in suit. 34. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh and others (supra), Apex Court held that the disputed question relating to title cannot be gone into or adjudicated in writ petition. 35. Admittedly, the petitioners have purchased plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111 by one single sale-deed dated 7.10.1953 registered on 14.10.1953. As per sale-deed, said plots were purchased by Lala Jagan Nath, Lala Magan Nath and Lala Amar Nath all sons of late Lala Gokal Chand from Mistress R.H. Crosbite through sale-deed dated 14.12.1950 registered as document 1762 in Book No. 1 Volume No. 795 on pages 260 to 263 on 21st December, 1950. In the sale-deed, it is categorically mentioned that the paper mill was constructed by the vendors, namely, Lala Jagan Nath, Lala Magan Nath and Lala Amar Nath in the year, 1951 mainly on plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and a boundary wall and godown were constructed on plot No. 2111. Details of the standing structure, fitting, fixture and machines are mentioned in sale-deed which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The genuineness and existence of sale-deed is not in dispute. 36. Admittedly, all the three plots were recorded in the revenue record as usar land. It appears that since the paper mill was in existence in plot Nos. 2136 and 2149, no claim has been made by the authorities about the vesting of the title of the above two plots with the State Government on the commencement of the Zamindari Abolition. Admittedly, all the three plots were recorded in the revenue record as usar land. It appears that since the paper mill was in existence in plot Nos. 2136 and 2149, no claim has been made by the authorities about the vesting of the title of the above two plots with the State Government on the commencement of the Zamindari Abolition. It appears that since there was no substantial construction and there was only boundary wall and a room, the authorities concerned in respect of plot No. 2111/2 might have raised dispute about its title, therefore, the petitioners filed suit for declaration as Original Suit No. 179 of 1973 under Section 229-B of the Act claiming the title and ownership over the said plot. State of U.P. and Municipal Board, Pilakhua contested the matter. State of U.P. contested the suit on the ground that the petitioners were neither owner nor in possession of the plot in dispute. They also contended that plot Nos. 2149, 2136 and 2111/2 were banjar land at the time of commencement of the Act and on the abolition of Zamindari they have been vested in the State of U.P. and then in the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiff possession over plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 is illegal. Municipal Board has also raised the same plea and has also pleaded that the paper mill or any building thereof did not exist in the land in suit in the year, 1950-1951, therefore, Lala Jagan Nath, Lala Magan Nath and Lala Amar Nath were not entitled to sell the same and the alleged sale-deed was fraudulent and farzi. 37. Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit vide order dated 3.8.1976 on the basis of the evidences on record, namely, document relating to the purchases of building materials, letter dated 17.7.1951 of the Chief Inspector of Boilers, certificate from the Chief Inspector of Boilers, letter dated 7.6.1952 of Chief Inspector of Factories etc. It has been held that the paper mill was constructed in the year 1951 on plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 by the vendor and boundary wall and one room was constructed on plot No. 2111/2 by the vendee. It has been held that plot No. 2111 was used as appurtenant to the building of the factory. It has been held that the paper mill was constructed in the year 1951 on plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 by the vendor and boundary wall and one room was constructed on plot No. 2111/2 by the vendee. It has been held that plot No. 2111 was used as appurtenant to the building of the factory. It has been further held that revenue entry are of little consequence because the predecessors in title of the plaintiff had purchased the land in suit before abolition of Zamindari and had bounded the same by raising boundary wall. The boundary wall had been raised with a view to use disputed land for the purposes of the Mill. Therefore, the entry of usar in the revenue records is of no assistance to the defendants. It has also been observed that though plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 also continued to be recorded as usar although the paper mills have come into existence on those plots since long. It has been further held that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the plot in suit. The aforesaid findings and the view of the Additional Civil Judge has been confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in appeal No. 406 of 1976 vide order dated 19.11.1996 in appeal filed by the State Government. Against the order of the Additional District Judge, no second appeal was filed by the State Government. However, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilakhua, Ghaziabad filed second appeal No. 973 of 1999 before this Court, which has been dismissed vide order dated 5.10.2007. Special Leave Petition has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.2.2008. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Additional Civil Judge in its order dated 3.8.1976 referred herein above have become final. 38. It may be mentioned here that though the suit was in respect of plot No. 2111/2 only, but the State Government as well as Municipal Board raised the plea in respect of plot No. 2149 and 2136 also on the ground that they were also recorded in the revenue record as Banjar land, therefore, they vested with the State on the commencement of the Act. Additional Civil Judge in its order has considered the submission of State and recorded the findings in respect of all the three plot Nos. Additional Civil Judge in its order has considered the submission of State and recorded the findings in respect of all the three plot Nos. 2149, 2136 and 2111/2 and has categorically held that the paper mill was constructed in the year, 1951 on plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and on plot No. 2111, boundary wall and a room was constructed which was the land appurtenant to the building of the factory constructed much prior to the commencement of the Act. Therefore, in view of the findings recorded by the Additional Civil Judge, though the plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111 are recorded as Banjar land, they could not be vested with the State Government on the commencement of the Act. Moreover, in the plot Nos. 2136 and 2149, paper mill was found constructed in the year, 1951, prior to the commencement of the Act, the aforesaid plots ceased to be the land. In the circumstances, the Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply to such plots. Since plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111 could not be vested with the State Government, therefore, Municipal Board cannot claim its right over such land. Therefore, the Notification issued under Section 117 of the Act by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide impugned order of resumption No. 3980/231/07-08 dated 20.9.2008 is patently illegal and liable to be set aside. 39. In our view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that suit No. 179 of 1973 was only in respect of plot No. 2111/2 and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Additional Civil Judge in its order confined to the said plot and the findings recorded in respect of plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 would not be binding and will not be res judicata cannot be accepted. As stated above, all the three plots were purchased by one sale-deed and were recorded in the revenue record as Banjar land. State of U.P. and Municipal Board contested the suit that all the three plots were vested in the State of U.P. on the commencement of the Act being recorded as Banjar land and the construction of the paper mill was prior to the commencement of the Act was disputed. State of U.P. and Municipal Board contested the suit that all the three plots were vested in the State of U.P. on the commencement of the Act being recorded as Banjar land and the construction of the paper mill was prior to the commencement of the Act was disputed. On the plea of the State of U.P. and the Municipal Board, evidences have been adduced from both the sides and on the consideration of the evidences, Additional Civil Judge held that paper mill was constructed in the year, 1951 on the plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and plot No. 2111 was appurtenant to the building of the factory which was bounded by a boundary wall and a room. The findings of the Additional Civil Judge in respect of all the three plots have become final. At no point of time, the State of U.P. or the Municipal Board had raised any plea that the findings recorded by the Additional Civil Judge in its order in respect of plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 was beyond the scope of the suit. The issue involved in the suit in respect of plot No. 2111/2 was directly and substantially connected with the plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 and the factual and the legal issues which were common to all the three plots have been adjudicated and decided together. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Additional Civil Judge in its order dated 3.8.1976 in respect of the plot Nos. 2136 and 2149 are binding on the State Government as well as Municipal Board (now Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilakhua, Ghaziabad) and the principle of res judicata applies. In the circumstances, it is not open to the State of U.P. and Nagar Palika Parishad to raise any plea contrary to the findings recorded in the order of the Additional Civil Judge. 40. Our view is fully supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of E. Ethirajan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Lakshmi and others (supra) wherein the contention of the parties that the principle of res judicata cannot apply because in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit the whole property is the subject-matter, cannot be accepted. v. Lakshmi and others (supra) wherein the contention of the parties that the principle of res judicata cannot apply because in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit the whole property is the subject-matter, cannot be accepted. It has been held that the principle of res judicata under Section 11, C.P.C. is attracted where issues directly and substantially involved between the same parties in the previous and subsequent suit are the same, may be, in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit, the whole property is the subject-matter. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others v. Banamali Sen and others (supra) also supports our view. 41. We are of the view that the pleas and the defence taken by the respondent are clearly hit by the principle of res judicata as envisaged in Section 11 of the C.P.C. 42. It may be mentioned here that from the aforesaid fact it is absolutely clearly that the factory building was constructed in plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 in the year 1951 prior to the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, therefore, Section 4 of the Act does not apply and the plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 were not vested with the State. It is useful to refer Sections 4, 6, 9 and the definition of the land provided in Section 2(14) of the Act. "4. Vesting of estates in the State.—(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by notification, declare that, as from a date to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances. (2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considers necessary, to issue, from time to time, the notification referred to in sub-section (1) in respect only of such area or areas as may be specified and all the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be applicable to and in the case of every such notification. 6. (2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considers necessary, to issue, from time to time, the notification referred to in sub-section (1) in respect only of such area or areas as may be specified and all the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be applicable to and in the case of every such notification. 6. Consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State.—When the notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensure in the area to which the notification relates, namely : (a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries—(i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren), grove-land, forests whether within or outside village boundaries trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries, [* * *], tanks, ponds, water-channels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites, hats, bazars and melas (other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply; and (ii) in all sub-soil in such estates including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not; shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances; (b) .................... (c) .................... (d) .................... (e) .................... (f) .................... (g) (i) every mortgage with possession existing on any estate or part of an estate on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall, to the extent of the amount secured on such estate or part, be deemed, without prejudice to the rights of the State Government under Section 4, to have been substituted by a simple mortgage; (ii) .................... (h) .................... (i) .................... (j) .................... 9. (h) .................... (i) .................... (j) .................... 9. Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings to be settled with the existing owners or occupiers thereof.—[All wells,] trees in abadi, and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site of the wells or the buildings within the area appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Section 2(14). “Land” [except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII] means land held or occupied for purposes of connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming." 43. Admittedly, the notification issued under Section 4 was published in the Gazette Notification on 1st July, 1952. The land defined under Section 2(14) means land held or occupied for purposes of connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming. The plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 were not used for the purposes or connecting with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry pisciculture and poultry farming and they were used for industrial purposes, therefore, they do not fall within the purview of ‘land’ defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. In view of Section 9 all the buildings situated within the limits of an estate shall continue to belong to such person within the area appurtenant thereto and shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 were not vested with the State and the petitioners continued to be owner of such plots. 44. It is the case of the petitioner that after the execution of sale-deed on 14.10.1953 the petitioners had applied for the mutation. Merely because the mutation proceeding was kept pending and in the record it continued to be recorded as usar land, the right of the petitioners cannot be defeated. 45. Learned Standing Counsel very fairly submitted that State has no case in respect of plot No. 2111 in view of the decree in Suit No. 179 of 1973. Merely because the mutation proceeding was kept pending and in the record it continued to be recorded as usar land, the right of the petitioners cannot be defeated. 45. Learned Standing Counsel very fairly submitted that State has no case in respect of plot No. 2111 in view of the decree in Suit No. 179 of 1973. In the said suit Plot No. 2111 has been held as the land appurtenant to the factory building. Therefore, the existence of the building on plot Nos. 2149 and 2136 cannot be disputed by the respondent by any stretch of imagination. 46. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents that title of the property requires investigation and determination on the basis of the evidences led by the parties cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but can only be decided in a suit are wholly irrelevant on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 47. In the present case, we have arrived at a conclusion that factual as well as legal controversy have been settled between the parties in suit No. 179 of 1973 filed by the petitioners and no further investigation or enquiry is required in the matter, therefore, there is no justification for asking the petitioners to file suit for declaration of title in respect of plot Nos. 2136 and 2149. 48. On the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in resumption No. 3980/231/07-08 dated 20.9.2008 under Section 117 of the Act is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 49. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut is set aside and the respondents are restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over plot Nos. 2136, 2149 and 2111 except a part of plot No. 2149 comprising area of 3410 Hectare which has been acquired by the State Government by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.11.2005 and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.6.2006. Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—I agree. ————