CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX LUCKNOW and ANR. V. SMT. ASMA JAHAN and ORS.

CLRE/38/2018

AI Insights

The case involves a civil revision by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow against Smt. Asma Jahan and others, concerning a dispute over property acquisition and subsequent construction activities. The revisionists challenged the trial court's rejection of their application to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the suit was barred due to prior land acquisition notifications. The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership and uninterrupted possession of certain properties, which the defendants intended to develop. The trial court rejected the application to dismiss the plaint, leading to this revision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728099 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staf Assn., Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala & Co., Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property, Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharastra, R.K.Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu, Mudit Verma v. Ram Kumar
• Laws Referred To: C.P.C., Land Acquisition Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV MEHROTRA; MURTAZA HUSAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH MISRA; KUSHAGRA DIKSHIT; NEERAV CHITRAVANSHI
• Keywords: Civil Revision; Land Acquisition; Permanent injunction; Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
• Section: 11; 6; 7; 4

Judgement Text

"Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25779 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 38 of 2018 Revisionist :- Chief Commissioner Income T ax Lucknow And Anr. Opposite Party :- Smt. Asma Jahan And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Misra,Kushagra Dikshit,Neerav Chitravanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Murtaza Husain Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondents despite the names of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra and Shri Murtaza Husain are shown in the cause list, as counsel for the respondents. 3. After hearing was concluded, Shri Devrath, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra and stated that Shri Mehrotra has no instructions in the matter. 4. Be that as it may, the court has heard learned counsel for the revisionists who assailed the order dated 20.4.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1722 of 2017 (Smt. Asma Jahan and others Vs. Union of India and others) wherein an application moved by the present revisionists under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P .C., has been rejected by the trial court. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the private respondents instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow which was registered as Regular Suit No.1722 of 2017. It is urged that in the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the property bearing no. Khasra Plot Nos.142 and 144, situate in Gram Madi Madarpur, Pargana T ehsil and District Lucknow which is presently known as House No.29/1, 29/2, 29/3, 29/4 and 57, Rana Pratap Marg, Clive Road, Lucknow. It is stated that the said property has been with the plaintiffs since the time of their ancestors. 6. It was also alleged that the respondents had attempted to acquire the said property, however the plaintiffs have received no compensation nor their possession was disturbed. 7. It was also stated that the respondent i.e. the present revisionist had issued an E-T ender inviting bids from prospective builders/ contractors for getting constructions done over the property in question which as per the revisionist, was known as 57, Ram T eerath Marg, Lucknow. It is urged that actually 57, Ram T eerath Marg, Lucknow is part of the property of Khasra Plot Nos.142 and 144 which belong to the plaintiffs and in such circumstances, a decree for permanent injunction was prayed that the defendants of the suit be restrained from encroaching on the property of the plaintiffs as well as from making any construction thereon. 8. Upon notices being issued, the defendants put in their appearance in the said suit and on behalf of the revisionists, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P .C. was filed. In the said application, it was stated that the suit is barred in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P .C. and the basic premise was that the land in question had been acquired in terms of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\") vide Notification dated 31.5.1999 which was followed by a further Notification under Section 6 of the Act and the State after acquiring the said land for the purpose of construction of Income T ax Office, handed over the same to the revisionist who now in order to raise construction, had issued an E-T ender seeking suitable quotations from the contractors for raising constructions. 9. The plaintiffs of the suit filed their objections to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P .C. and it was stated that the grounds as prayed by the revisionists, were not met and the plaint could not be rejected. The trial court after hearing the parties, by means of the order dated 20.4.2018 rejected the application holding that on the basic perusal of the plaint, there was no statement by which a plaint could be treated barred by law, hence it could not be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P .C. 10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the revisionist and also perused the material on record. 11. The contention of Shri Dikshit while pressing the instant revision was that in para 10 of the plaint, there was a clear mention that property bearing 57, Ram T eerath Marg, Lucknow was part of Plot no.142 and 144 which was claimed by the plaintiffs and hence in terms of Government Notification for acquisition of the land, the suit was barred as acquisition proceedings could not be challenged in a civil suit. 12. Having heard the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the plaint, it would be appropriate to say that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P .C. it is only the plaint averments as well as the documents filed with it can be considered by the court to determine whether the plaint falls foul of any of such provisions as contained under 7 Rule 11 C.P .C. 13. From the careful reading of the plaint, it would indicate that the suit has been in respect of Khasra Plot Nos.142 and 144. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is taken note of, it would still indicate that the property bearing no.57, Ram T eerath Marg, Lucknow at best would be a part of the property which is the subject matter of the suit i.e. Plot No.142 and 144. The plaintiffs do not state that the entire Khasra plot number is covered by the entire property 57, Ram T eerath Marg. Even otherwise, there are certain discrepancies which indicate that the properties are separate. However, needless to say that this is all a subject matter of the suit. In order to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P .C., the court has to take the plaint averments alone the way it is and cannot read certain sentences in violation nor paragraphs can be culled out in isolation to arrive at a conclusion whether the plaint can or cannot be rejected. 14. From the meaningful reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaint is barred by law. The defendant is entitled to raise his defence and it is also permissible for the trial court to frame preliminary issue, if need be. However, in the instant case, the plea of acquisition is that of the defendant is point of his defence which cannot be considered at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P .C. 15. This Court is fortified in its view in light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staf Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510, Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala & Co. : 2025 SCC Online SC 48, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2024) 3 SCC 137, Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property : (1998) 7 SCC 184, Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharastra : (2003) 1 SCC 557 and R.K.Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu : (2016) 14 SCC 275 as well as judgment of this court in Mudit Verma v. Ram Kumar , 2018 SCC OnLine All 3411. 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any jurisdictional error committed by the trial court while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P .C. 17. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no merit in the revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 18. It would be open for the revisionists to raise their defence before the trial court, which needless to say shall be considered by the trial court during trial. Order date : 2.5.2025. Shukla. Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "