JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Shri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri A.K. Singh appears for the respondents including the newly added respondents vide Courts order dated 28.1.2009. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in O.S. No. 738 of 2001. 3. It emerges from record that the plaintiffs-respondents i.e. Smt. Kailashwati Bhatia w/o Late Sri Chaman Lal Bhatia had filed a suit No. 738 of 2001 seeking a declaration and injunction in the Trial Court. It was pleaded before the Trial Court that one late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia son of Sardar Gopal Singh Bhatia was owner and landlord of plot Nos. 27/2/0-15-0, 28/1-1-0, 29/1-5-0, 31/2/0-17-14 and 32/1-12-0 situate in village Arthala, Pargana Loni in District Ghaziabad. After the death of Late Sri Chaman Lal Bhatia his legal heirs/legal representatives i.e. six plaintiffs before the Trial Court became owners and landlords of the land in dispute. Earlier, there used to be a Pottery factory on the land, comprising constructions, sheds the land was surrounded by a pucca boundary wall. Earlier, this land was within the area of Gaon Sabha Arthala, Ghaziabad. Later on it was notified in the area of Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. During the lifetime of Late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia, a confusion was created by the revenue authorities regarding title over the land in dispute. The revenue authorities started making interference in the peaceful possession of late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia. Under the compelling circumstances, late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia approached this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ in the year 1970 registered as w.p. No. 352 of 1970. The Court had rendered a judgment on 24.10.1973 allowing the writ petition. As a result thereof the State of U.P., District Magistrate Ghaziabad were restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. The relevant observations and findings of this Hon’ble Court recorded in the judgment dated 24.10.1973 are quoted below : “M/S Standard Potteris Ltd. were owners of plot Nos. 27,28,29,31 and 32 in village Arthala, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Ghaziabad, district Meerut. They had enclosed the aforesaid plots by a boundary wall and bad constructed some houses, a well, chimney, and a brick klin and also installed machinery etc. for the manufacture of porcelain goods. M/S Standard Potteries subsequently mortgaged the land, as also the construction etc. 27,28,29,31 and 32 in village Arthala, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Ghaziabad, district Meerut. They had enclosed the aforesaid plots by a boundary wall and bad constructed some houses, a well, chimney, and a brick klin and also installed machinery etc. for the manufacture of porcelain goods. M/S Standard Potteries subsequently mortgaged the land, as also the construction etc. to Rai Bahadur Ganga Prasad and certain other persons. Rai Bahadur Ganga Prasad filed suit No. 8 of 1948 against standard Potteries and this suit was decreed. Execution proceedings were, thereafter, started and the sale took place on 18.4.1953. The petitioner purchased the property at this auction, and the sale was confirmed on 15.3.1995. A sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner and possession was also delivered. The sale certificate and Dakhalnama have been filed as (Annexure’I’ and II’ to the petition). They disclose, that the petitioner purchased four plots alongwith various constructions standing thereon. On the 29th December, 1969 a notification was issued under Section 117(4) of the U.P. Gaon Sabha of Plot Nos. 28 and 29. In the result of this notification was that these plots became vested with the State Government. Acting on the strength of this notification, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2 to the petition and his subordinate staff started taking steps for possession of plot Nos. 28 and 29. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid acts on behalf of the respondents, as also the notification dated 29th December 1969. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in a such factory existed in the compound which comprised of plot Nos. 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32 and a brick-klin was being run on plot Nos. 29, the entire compound constituted a single unit and was appurtenant to the factory standing on the other plots, and as such on the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the entire land stood settled with the Standard Potteris in view of Section 9 of that Act. This being so, the petitioner who purchased the property in an auction sale became the owner thereof, and as such even if the land in dispute could possibly be resumed by the State Government from the Gaon Sabha, the respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner. This being so, the petitioner who purchased the property in an auction sale became the owner thereof, and as such even if the land in dispute could possibly be resumed by the State Government from the Gaon Sabha, the respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner. It has also been contended that no direction for vesting the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha could have been issued under Section 117 of the Act by the State Government as the land had already been settled with the erstwhile owners by the State Government in accordance with the provision of Section 9 of the Act, and as such, the initial notification and the subsequent cancellation thereof are without jurisdiction. Two counter-affidavits have been filed in the petitioner one on behalf of the Land Management Committee and other on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Management Committee and the Gaon Sabha have filed a joint counter-affidavit, but in a such as the petition has been dismissed as against the Land Management Committee, the counter-affidavit has to be taken to be one on behalf of the Gaon Sabha only. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by Ved Prakash Sharma on behalf of the Gaon Sabha the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the petition have not been denied for want of knowledge. In the counter-affidavit of B.R. Saxena filed on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in paragraph 6 it is stated that the deponent does not have any knowledge of the contents of paragraphs 4 to 7 of the petition. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the writ petition contain recital of facts leading up to the purchase of land in dispute by the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit of Ved Prakash Sharma filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, it is stated that plot No. 28 is used as the compound of the Factory and a brick-klin was previously running on plot No. 29 land. It is also stated that the land is being used by the petitioner for the purpose of his factory. Similar averments are contained in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit of B.R. Saxena filed on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is also stated that the land is being used by the petitioner for the purpose of his factory. Similar averments are contained in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit of B.R. Saxena filed on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In view of the sale certificate and the Dakhalnama and the averments contained in para-9 of the two counter-affidavit, it is clear that the area in question constitutes a single unit on which a number of buildings etc. enclosed by a boundary wall are standings. Inasmuch as the averments in paras 4 to 7 of the petition are not denied, it has to be held that these constructions were in existence before 1952 and the erstwhile owner had a valid title to the land and constructions standing thereon became settled with the erstwhile owners of the factory in view of Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner being an auction purchaser, therefore, got a valid title to the land and the building. Now, once this position is reached, the respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner, even if the land has vested in the State Government, for even though after the abolition of Zamindari, all land vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 6 of the Act, this does not entitle the state to interfere with the rights created under that Act itself. Section 9 of the Act settles land and the buildings with the person holding the land and building, and confers specific rights on the persons to continue in possession of the land and building so settled and this being so, the respondents had no jurisdiction to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. The notification, if any, which the State Government issued under Section 117 of the Act vesting the land in the Gaon Sabha settled with persons under Section 9 of the Act. Further, in as much as the land in dispute was an Abadi site, it could not have been directed to vest in the Gaon Sabha, as only such land as is defined in Section 3(14) of the Act can be directed to vest in the Gaon Sabha and Abadi Land fells outside the purview of such land. Thus, the initial notification under Section 117 and the impugned notification are clearly without jurisdiction. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Thus, the initial notification under Section 117 and the impugned notification are clearly without jurisdiction. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of plot Nos. 28 and 298 in Village Arthala, Pargana Lone, Tehsil Ghaziabad, district Meerut. It is not necessary to quash the impugned notification (annexure-III to the petition) as the petitioner’s right can be adequately protected by the Mandamus that is being issued. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.” 4. Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia had filed another writ petition in the year 1973, which was registered as w.p. No. 7269 of 1973. A division Bench of this Court had rendered a judgment on 16.5.1983. The operative portion of this judgment is quoted below : “In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the respondents are restrained from interfering with possession and ejoyment of the petitioner of Plot Nos. 27/2, 31/2 and 32 referred to above which at the time of issue of impugned notification were situated in Pargana Loni, Tehsil Ghaziabad District Meerut and now as we are informed situated with the municipal limits of district Ghaziabad. Since the writ petition has not been opposed, there will be no order as to costs.” 5. Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia had died and the land in dispute was recorded in the name of his legal heirs and legal representatives, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein. Their names have been given in the array of parties. 6. The revenue authorities of Collectorate Ghaziabad and Gaon Sabha remained silent thereafter as they had knowledge of the above judgment and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. They had accepted the verdict of this Court. However, the authorities of Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad started interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, legal heirs of Late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia. The land in dispute was in occupation and possession of Smt. Kailashwati Bhatia, Vinod Bhatia, Malti Bhatia, Udit Bhatia, Vijay Rovust, Smt. Mamta Bhatia, Amit Bhatia and Sumit Bhatia. The above mentioned judgments and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court were shown to the Nagar Nigam’s authorities who still had not stopped interfering in peaceful possession of the land owners. 7. The above mentioned judgments and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court were shown to the Nagar Nigam’s authorities who still had not stopped interfering in peaceful possession of the land owners. 7. The land owners sent a legal notice to the authorities of Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad under Section 571 of Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam. When the illegal interference, transgression in the peaceful possession did not stop, a suit was filed before the appropriate Court i.e. Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghazipur. The Trial Court had framed eight issues covering the disputes. 8. After considering the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court and other materials, the Trial Court had decreed the suit with costs on 16.7.2005. The operative portion contained in the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2005 is quoted below : “nkok oknh lC;; bl vk’k; ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS fd oknhx.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV la[;k 3521@1970 bZ0 ,oa fjV la[;k 7269@1973 esa ikfjr vkns’kks ds vuqdze esa fookfnr lEifRr [kljk uEcjku 27@2@0&15&0] 28ch@1&5&0] 31@2@0&17&14 ,oa 32@1&12&0 ds Lokeh ,oa dkfct gS rFkk izfroknh dks vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fcuk fof/k }kjk cuk;h x;h izfdz;k oknhx.k dks fookfnr lEifRr ls csn[ky u djsaA” 9. Shri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on various grounds. According to him, the defendant-appellant had filed a written statement indicating therein that the defendants were not owners of the disputed property. They had not filed any document showing acquisition of land through any legal means. The suit was barred by Order VI Rule 14 CPC and a proper notice under Section 571 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 was not served. The suit was also barred by Sections 34 and 41 of Specific Relief Act. It was barred by Sections 330 and 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Shri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the land in dispute was infact property of Gaon Sabha Arthala and vide notification issued by the State Government on 19.2.1967 it became property of the State Government. Later on vide notification dated 18.11.1972 the land was vested in Municipal Board, Ghaziabad., which was subsequently in the year 1994 was upgraded as Municipal Corporation Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. Later on vide notification dated 18.11.1972 the land was vested in Municipal Board, Ghaziabad., which was subsequently in the year 1994 was upgraded as Municipal Corporation Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. The Trial Court had not taken note of the relevant revenue entries of 1376 Fasli and other pleading of the parties. 10. As far as the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court is concerned, the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad was not a party to the said petitions and as such the directions contained in the judgments are not binding on Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. Since the suit was decreed on the basis of two decisions of Hon’ble High Court in which Nagar Nigam was not a party, hence, these judgments are not binding on it. The Trial Court should have decided the matter on its own merits, not to be guided by High Courts’ judgment. The land in dispute was Gaon Sabha as ‘Banjar’ land. The revenue Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. The judgment and decree of the Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. No proper reasons have been recorded by the Trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents-land owners has resisted the appeal. Attention of the Court was drawn to the findings recorded by this Hon’ble Court in its two judgments as indicated above. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed chronology of events before the Hon’ble Court to show that the property was acquired by Late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia in an auction sale in furtherance of implementation of a decree of the Civil Court. The documents have been shown to demonstrate that there existed a pottery factory. The plots were enclosed by a pacca boundary wall. The Hon’ble High Court has rightly held that apart from notification, since the plaintiffs were in possession over the land for substantially long period, therefore, by virtue of Section 9 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act they became owner Bhumidhars of the land. The defendants had purchased the land in dispute through an auction sale and had paid adequate valid consideration. The sale was duly approved by a Court of law. They became title holder and owners of the land in dispute, duly certified by the Court of law. Such land cannot be resumed by the State Government. The defendants had purchased the land in dispute through an auction sale and had paid adequate valid consideration. The sale was duly approved by a Court of law. They became title holder and owners of the land in dispute, duly certified by the Court of law. Such land cannot be resumed by the State Government. The notification shown by Shri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant Nagar Nigam was without jurisdiction as far as the land in dispute is concerned. The Court had rightly decreed that the Abadi site (Residential areas) cannot be vested in Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for the respondent has led the Court to the judgments rendered by this Court. He has read both the judgments by which the respondents were declared to be Title holder. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents, materials placed on record and the judgments rendered by this Court on 24.10.1973 and 16.5.1983. 13. I have carefully gone through the reliefs sought in the writ petition Nos. 352 of 1970 and 7269 of 1973. This Hon’ble Court had rendered two detailed judgments i.e. 24.10.1973 and thereafter on 16.5.1985, setting at rest the dispute raised between the respondents-land owners and the State of U.P. Collector Ghaziabad, Gaon Sabha etc. The High Court had allowed two writ petitions filed by late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia, father of respondents herein. This Court had in so many words restrained the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land in dispute of the writ petitioner late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia and now represented by his legal heirs and legal representatives, the respondents. The notification cited by Shri Prem Chandra before this Court had already been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. This Court has already taken note of the history of acquisition of land by late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia. There existed plots, encircled by a boundary wall. There were some constructed houses, chimney and bricklin on the land. The Procelain Goods, Chinaclay Pottery etc. were being manufactured by M/S Standard Potteris in the factory. The suit No. 8 of 1948 was decreed by the civil Court. The execution proceedings started. The land of said factory was put on auction. Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia had purchased the entire property taking part in the auction. The sale was also confirmed on 15.3.1955 and was approved by the Court. The suit No. 8 of 1948 was decreed by the civil Court. The execution proceedings started. The land of said factory was put on auction. Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia had purchased the entire property taking part in the auction. The sale was also confirmed on 15.3.1955 and was approved by the Court. A sale certificate and the Dakhalnama (delivery of possession) was produced before the High Court. The Court has taken note of all these events. This Court had quashed the proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad in respect of the acquisition of the plots in dispute. 14. This Court has also taken note that on the enforcement of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the entire land stood settled with the M/S Standard Potteris in view of Section 9 of the said Act. The defendants father Chaman Lal Bhatia being a purchaser of the said property in an auction sale held by the Court became the Bhumidhar owner thereof. The initial notification dated 29th September 1969 and other proceedings were held to be null and void by the High Court. This Court has already recorded detailed findings and observations taking note of the oral and documentary evidence and appreciating the legal provisions relevant for settling the disputes. In the present case, the dispute in respect of title over the land in dispute of late Shri Chaman Lal Bhatia now represented by legal representatives/legal heirs has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble High Court. It is noteworthy that the two judgments dated 24.10.1973 and 6.5.1985 rendered by this Court are still in vogue and operative. No challenge was made to these judgments by any of the parties, and as such this appeal is barred by law of res judicata. The Trial Court had no other option except to take note of and consider the findings and observations rendered by Hon’ble High Court in its two judgments. The findings, observations and directions contained in the said two judgments of this Hon’ble High Court are certainly binding on the Trial Court and on this Court also. An attempt has been made by Nagar Nigam to unsettle the settled disputes. The Trial Court had found that the legal notices was legal, valid and proper. The other issues were also properly dealt with in the light of the oral and documentary evidence. An attempt has been made by Nagar Nigam to unsettle the settled disputes. The Trial Court had found that the legal notices was legal, valid and proper. The other issues were also properly dealt with in the light of the oral and documentary evidence. The judgment is a well reasoned and well considered document. 15. In view of above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is required in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court on 16.7.2005. The Revision deserves to be dismissed. The Revision is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16.7.2005 is hereby affirmed. All the necessary consequences shall immediately follow. The Records shall be corrected accordingly. 16. This Court has also taken note of the subsequent developments which took place during pendency of this case. This Court has been apprised by filing affidavits alongwith the copies of the sale deeds that the land in dispute has now been sold to M/S Ahuja and Anand Buildwell (Pvt.) Ltd, having its office at Delhi. The property in dispute was purchased by this firm, respondent No. 7 from its owners i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by a registered sale deed dated 5.2.2007, the sale deeds have been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ghaziabad. Details of the transactions have been given in the affidavit dated 3.8.2008 alongwith sale deeds which have already become part of the record. The benefits of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court and this Court shall now be available to the purchaser of the land i.e. respondents No. 7 also. ————