JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. The present first appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014, passed in Original Suit No. 325 of 2008, Shri Kanti Lal Bum and Another (“plaintiffs”) vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another (“defendants”), by the court of First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar (“the suit”). By the impugned decree, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows: The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of ownership of the disputed property. [land khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246m, admeasuring 22.80 Kham i.e. 3.8471 Acre, situated in Village Sekhupura alias Khankhal, Pargana and Tehsil Haridwar within the limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar. In its East, Harish Chand; in the West river Ganges and Uma Maheshwar Trust; in the North, Uma Maheshwar Trust and in the South, river Ganges.] The plaintiffs have also sought permanent injunction. 4. According to the plaintiffs the land Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246(m) is non-ZA land, situated in Village Sekhupura alias Kankhal, Tehsil and District Haridwar. Its total area is 35 Bidha, 07 Bishwa and 13 Biswansi pacca. This land is recorded in the revenue record in the names of Zamindar and Khewatdar, as owners. There are many owners of this land, who are in possession of their respective shares in the property. Out of this Khewat No. 53, a certain portion was purchased by Uma Maheshwar Trust and the name of the Trust was recorded in the revenue record. Subsequently, there were some defects in the map. For its correction, Uma Maheshwar Trust did file a revenue suit, which was allowed and the map was corrected. 5. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased disputed property, which is a part of Khewat No. 53, by a sale-deed dated 09.01.2007. It was purchased from the Khewatdar. The respondents have no rights, whatsoever in the disputed property, but notices were given by the defendants claiming the disputed property as their own, which was duly replied by the plaintiffs. 5. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased disputed property, which is a part of Khewat No. 53, by a sale-deed dated 09.01.2007. It was purchased from the Khewatdar. The respondents have no rights, whatsoever in the disputed property, but notices were given by the defendants claiming the disputed property as their own, which was duly replied by the plaintiffs. With these and other allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their ownership over the disputed property as well as they sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed property. 6. The defendants filed Written Statement and replied the claim of the plaintiffs. It has been the claim of the defendants that the disputed property is within the control of State Government and the plaintiffs or their predecessors have no concerned with the disputed property; the disputed property is the part of the riverbed, which is non-ZA property, which could not be included into the settlement. It is reserved for Khumbh Mela. 7. It has been the case of the defendants that out of Khasra No. 246, 05 Bigha, 03 Bishwa land is used for Mayapur Escape Channel and the remaining land of Khasra No. 246(m) lies in the West of Channel, whereas the plaintiffs wrongly claimed the disputed property as part of Khasra No. 246(m). Objections with regard to the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (“the Act”) and other defences were also taken by the defendants. 8. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed in the suit: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the disputed property? (2) Whether the property is situated in Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246? (3) Whether the disputed property is unsettled land? (4) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of the Section 15 of the Act? (5) Whether the suit is barred by Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? (6) Whether the suit is under-valued and the court fee paid is insufficient? (7) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs entitled? 9. In order to prove its case the plaintiffs examined two witnesses PW1 Kanti Lal Bum and PW2 Raj Oberoi. 10. The plaintiffs, as per list 8 C-1, have filed 09 documents, which are as under: (i) Extract copy of Khewat. (7) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs entitled? 9. In order to prove its case the plaintiffs examined two witnesses PW1 Kanti Lal Bum and PW2 Raj Oberoi. 10. The plaintiffs, as per list 8 C-1, have filed 09 documents, which are as under: (i) Extract copy of Khewat. (ii) Photostat copy of Lease (Radhey Shyam). (iii) Photostat copy of lease Nanwa. (iv) Photostat copy of Khatoni (Radhey Shyam). (v) Photostat copy of Khatoni (Nanwa). (vi) Certified copy of sale-deed dated 09.01.2007 (Plaintiffs) (vii) Photostat copy of a communication dated 19.07.2008. (viii) Reply of Nagar Palika dated 21.10.2008. (ix) Photocopy Copy dated 20.01.1997. 11. Along with List 56 C-1, the plaintiffs also filed 10 documents namely: (i) Certified copy of Kewat. (ii) Certified copy of Case No. 1 of 1997-98, court of Collector, Haridwar. (iii) Certified copy of Report dated 27.06.1998. (iv) Certified copy of Report dated 02.07.1998. (v) Certified copy of judgment of ADM, Haridwar in Case No. 1 of 1997-98, dated 03.07.1998. (vi) Certified copy of Sajra. (vii) Receipt of Irrigation Charge (Kanti Lal Bum). (viii) Electricity Bill (Kanti Lal Bum). (ix) Receipt of Electricity consumption. (x) Certified copy of sale-deed (Kanti Lal Bum). 12. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 Virendra Singh Rana is examined in evidence. 13. The defendants per List 30 C-1 filed copy of order dated 12-01-2009 of the Prescribed Authority, Haridwar in Case No. 2 of 2009, State of Uttarakhand vs. Vimal Kumar. The defendants have also filed extract of Khatoni along with an application 71 C-2. 14. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order the court held that the plaintiffs are the owner of the disputed property. On issue nos.2 and 3, it was held that the disputed property is situated in Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246 and it is not unsettled land. 15. On issue no. 4, the court concluded that the suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The court also held that the suit is not barred by the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Issue pertaining to the court fee had already been decided by the court on 17.02.2010. 16. Based on the finding recorded from issue nos.1 to 6, the suit has been decreed for declaration and permanent injunction. 17. The court also held that the suit is not barred by the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Issue pertaining to the court fee had already been decided by the court on 17.02.2010. 16. Based on the finding recorded from issue nos.1 to 6, the suit has been decreed for declaration and permanent injunction. 17. In the instant first appeal, on behalf of the appellants, it is argued that the disputed property is not identifiable; the river Ganges is co-owner of Khasra No. 246; there has been no partition between them; the plaintiffs cannot claim right on the property which they had not purchased. It is argued that the plaintiffs are not the owners in possession of the disputed property. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the plaintiffs have purchased the property by virtue of a sale-deed; the plaintiffs are recorded in the Khewats, the record of rights and boundaries are already disclosed in the sale-deed, which is confirmed by the Court Commissioner. 19. Learned counsel for the defendants would also submit that, in fact, Uma Maheshwar Trust have also purchased property in Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246. Subsequently, there were some disputes with regard to map, which was thereafter, corrected by Uma Maheshwar Trust by filing a suit. It is argued that the property of Uma Maheshwar Trust is adjoining to the disputed property. Therefore, the disputed property admittedly falls within Khasra No. 246 of Khewat No. 53. 20. In the instant first appeal, the point for determination is only one, which is as follows: (i) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the disputed property? 21. While deciding this issue, the Court shall also touch upon the question of identifiability of the disputed property. 22. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the disputed property, was purchased by the plaintiffs as follows: (i) By the registered sale-deed dated 09-01-2007, the portion of the property was purchased from Nanwa and Radhey Shyam. 23. The sale-deed is on record. The sale-deed specify the boundaries. 22. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the disputed property, was purchased by the plaintiffs as follows: (i) By the registered sale-deed dated 09-01-2007, the portion of the property was purchased from Nanwa and Radhey Shyam. 23. The sale-deed is on record. The sale-deed specify the boundaries. In it, the boundaries of the property, purchased by the sale-deed has been given, which is as follows: In the East, Harish Chand S/o Ganga Ram, Lalaram S/o Suraj Singh and Subhash S/o Harsh and Uma Maheshwar Trust; in the West, river Ganges and Uma Maheshwar Trust; in the North, Uma Maheshwar Trust and Suman and in the South, river Ganges. 24. In its evidence, PW1 Kantilal Bum has reiterated the version of plaint. He was cross-examined and in his cross-examination, he was asked to explain the boundaries of the disputed property, which he has stated. 25. PW2 Raj Oberai has also supported the plaintiffs’ case. He was also asked about the boundaries of the disputed property, which he revealed in his cross-examination. It corroborates the plaintiffs’ case and the statement of PW1 Kantilal Bum. 26. In fact, DW1 Virendra Singh Rana was also asked, in his cross-examination, about the boundaries of the disputed property. He has also corroborated the plaintiffs case with regard to the position or location of the disputed property. 27. It may be noted that there are two Commission Reports on record; one when the suit was filed and Commissioner issued. This report is paper no. 18 C1 on the record of the trial court. This inspection report has never been confirmed. It cannot be confirmed. It can only be read subject to the evidence. The boundaries given in this Commissions Report also corroborate the plaintiffs’ case. 28. In the instant case, a Survey Commission has also submitted his report. The Survey Commissioner submitted the report No. 48 C-2. Objections were invited on the Survey Commission Report and by the order dated 27.04.2013, the Commission Report has been confirmed, subject to the evidence. 29. The map given in the Survey Commissioner Report supports the plaintiffs’ case. All the boundaries are corroborating to the boundaries, as pleaded in the plaint and as stated by PW1 Kantilal Bum and PW2 Raj Oberai as well as DW1 Virendra Singh Rana. 30. It is the case of the defendants that the disputed property is unsettled property. 29. The map given in the Survey Commissioner Report supports the plaintiffs’ case. All the boundaries are corroborating to the boundaries, as pleaded in the plaint and as stated by PW1 Kantilal Bum and PW2 Raj Oberai as well as DW1 Virendra Singh Rana. 30. It is the case of the defendants that the disputed property is unsettled property. But, no evidence has been led by the defendants to establish their case. It is positive case of the defendants that in Khasra No. 246, the Irrigation Department has 05 Bigha, 03 Bishwa land, which is used for the Escape Channel, which is recorded as river Ganges at other places. 31. It is a civil case. The standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The plaintiffs have established the boundaries of the disputed property given in their sale-deed and as disclosed in the following Commission Reports: (1) The Commission Report, which is based without measurement at the initial stage of the suit. (2) Survey Commissioner Report. The Survey Commissioner has categorically stated that the disputed property lies in Khasra No. 246. 32. In addition to it, the Khewat, which is paper No. 57, records the name of the plaintiffs, after purchase of the disputed property. The plaintiffs are recorded in the Khewat. 33. It is admitted that Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246 is a large piece of land, which has many co-owners. 34. It has been one plea of the defendants that Khasra No. 246 is in the name of river Ganges. It is true that Khasra No. 246 is in the name of river Ganges, but entire Khasra No. 246 is not in the name of river Ganges. The entry which is recorded in extracts of Khatoni records river Ganges on Khasra No. 246m, which indicates that there are other co-owners, as well. 35. DW1 Virendra Singh Rana in his cross-examination has confirmed that Khasra No. 246 has other Zamindars also and only 05 Bigha, 03 Bishwa land belongs to the Irrigation Department, on which, Mayapur Escape Channel is running. If on total land recorded in the name of Irrigation Department is utilized for Escape Channel, how and under what circumstances, the defendants claim their rights over the disputed property? It is not even shown by the respondents. 36. If on total land recorded in the name of Irrigation Department is utilized for Escape Channel, how and under what circumstances, the defendants claim their rights over the disputed property? It is not even shown by the respondents. 36. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the disputed property is identifiable and it has been identified by the plaintiffs. It is Khewat No. 53, Khasra No. 246. It has also been proved by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the disputed property. Therefore, this Court concludes on point no. 1 that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the disputed property. 37. The court below did not commit any error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Instant first appeal has no force. Accordingly, the first appeal deserves to be dismissed. 38. The first appeal is dismissed.