ANITA RATHORE AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2437 of 2026

Anita Rathore And 3 Others
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Subhash      Chandra      Maurya,     Sr.
                                  Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)       :

Court No. - 54
                       HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Dr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Subhash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants with a prayer to
set aside the order dated 27.7.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Lalitpur in Original Suit No.39 of 2026 (Anita Rathore
& Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) whereby interim injunction application
filed by plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, was dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to
by their nomenclature as assigned in the plaint. The appellants are the
plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the aforesaid suit.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants submitted that a suit for
permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiffs, which was
registered as Original Suit No.39 of 2026. Said suit was instituted against
the State of U.P. and Department of Police, Lalitpur through
Superintendent of Police. Disclosing the brief history of the disputed land,
it was submitted that Arazi No.3686 was earlier leased out in favour of
the plaintiffs' grand father in the year 1940, which was subsequently
registered in the year 1942. This lease was a permanent lease which was
to be renewed within 30 years or after 99 years. On the said disputed land
which was in possession of the plaintiffs, eighteen quarters were
constructed by the plaintiffs and were subsequently sold to the police
department by means of sale deed executed in the year 1996. The police
personnel till date are residing in those quarters.
                                                        FAFO No. 2437 of 2026
                               2


5. It was submitted that the entire area of the disputed land is 3900 sq.
meters out of which 1400 sq. meters consists of construction that is
eighteen quarters being used by police for residential purposes.
Remaining 2500 sq. meters was an open area out of which 950 sq. meter
is within the possession of the plaintiffs.

6. The suit was filed with a prayer to restrain the respondent/defendants
from interfering in the possession of the said 950 sq. meters area which is
in possession of the plaintiffs. It was submitted that entire disputed land
virtually belongs to the plaintiffs since the year 1942 which was leased in
favour of the forefather of the plaintiffs by the State Government. It was
submitted that trial court while dismissing their prayer for interim
injunction has grossly erred in law and without considering the question
of possession diverted itself to the issue of title. It went further and even
disputed the possession of the plaintiffs which has not been disputed by
any of the parties.

7. It was further submitted that the lease for the first time was renewed in
the year 1979. The lease was to be renewed either after 30 years or 99
years. An application to declare the lease land as freehold was filed by the
plaintiffs on 29.01.1999 and the one fourth of the freehold fees amounting
to Rs.69,825/- was paid then and there. However, their application for
freeholding the land is still pending but plaintiffs continued to be in
possession over the open area of 950 sq. meter.

8. It was contended that the possession of the plaintiffs over the said
disputed area of the land is undisputed and same is continuing since 1942.
The police department / defendants are illegally trying to dispossess the
plaintiffs without adopting due process of law. Even for the sake of
argument, it is assumed that the plaintiffs are in illegal possession of the
disputed land, the police authorities or any government authorities had no
right to dispossess the plaintiffs unless they adopt the procedure
prescribed by the law. If there is any illegality in the possession of the
plaintiffs, the provision of Public Premises Act can be invoked by the
police authorities. But they have no right to use either force or illegal
means for dispossessing the plaintiffs from their peaceful possession. In
support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the
judgement of Supreme Court in Samir Sobhan Sanjay vs. Track Trade
                                                         FAFO No. 2437 of 2026
                                3


Private Ltd. & Ors.; 1996 (4) SCC 144 and Sunkamma (Dead) by
Legal Representatives vs. S. Pushpraj (dead) by Legal
Representatives; 2018 (12) SCC 647. It was submitted that the
impugned order passed by trial court dismissing the injunction application
by unnecessarily entering into the question of title is perverse and is liable
to be set aside, and that their application seeking temporary injunction in
respect of 950 sq. metre land on which they are in possession is liable to
be allowed.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellants and perused the impugned order.

10. It is admitted fact that the lease in favour of the plaintiffs was
executed in year 1942 and continued till 1979. It was also stated that the
said lease was further renewed and its renewal now continues for 99 years
and their application for freeholding the land is pending since year 1999.
But it appears from the perusal of the impugned order that disputed land
at present is recorded in favour of the respondents in the revenue records.
The said fact has not been disputed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

11. Now, the question arises, if a lease exists and the disputed land
forming part of lease also finds mention in Record of Rights, which one
of the document will prevail? It can be safely held that the entries in
Record of Rights will prevail over any lease deed or other deed conveying
possession. The trial court, on basis of the entry in the Record of Rights,
has held that the title as well as possession of the plaintiffs is clouded and
hence they are not entitled to interim injunction. This Court does not find
any illegality in the finding recorded by the trial court.

12. So far as the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, they were carefully
perused by me. In the judgment in Sunkamma (supra), it was held by the
Supreme Court that a plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction, is only
required to prove that he is in lawful possession. The 'lawful possession'
has a wider import and the said possession cannot be held to be a lawful
possession only because it has continued since long. A possession to be
lawful must have certain legal right behind it. Unless a plaintiff is not able
to establish his title and lawful possession, his possession, whatsoever its
                                                                                            FAFO No. 2437 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    duration may be, cannot entitle him to seek relief of injunction. Prima
                                    facie, this Court is of the view that the dispute of title exists between the
                                    parties and, in such circumstances, the trial court has not committed any
                                    error in dismissing the interim injunction application filed on behalf of the
                                    plaintiffs/appellants.

                                    13. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned
                                    order passed by the trial court is upheld.



                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad