Kanta Bhatnagar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 21, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur.
2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 Harish Chandra and Basant Kumar (lo be referred as 'the plaintiffs) filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants with the prayer that State of Rajasthan be directed not to interfere with their possession on two bighas and eight biswas of land and structures standing thereon, shown in the plan annexed to the plaint. A prayer was also made for a decree for possession of 16 bighas and 16 bigwas of land against the three appellants. The averments in the plaint were that the erstwhile State of Mewar, vide Mahakma Khas, Revene Department Order No. 20601 dated July 14, 1946 sanctioned the sale of 19 bighas and 14 biswas of land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint situated at village Sundervas, Tehsil Girva to Bhanwarlal father of the plaintiffs. Bbanwarlal paid 'Najul' tax amounting to Rs. 86.50 @ 4 1/2 per bigha for the land on September 4, 1946. Bhanwarlal was put in possession of the land. Alicence was granted to Bhanwarlal for putting on a Glass Factory at Sundervas. Bhanwarlal father of the plaintiffs and plaintiff Harish Chandra spent a huge amount for the construction of the buildings for the Glass Factory and labour quarters and purchasing machines and plants. Glass Factory was started in the year 1948 and continued up to 1957. Bhanwarlal suffered loss in the Glass Factory. He expired on January 17,1961. A notice dated March 29, 1968 was received by the plaintiff Harish Chandra on April 11, 1968 informing that the land allotted to his father Bhanwarlal had been resumed by the State Government because it was not used for the purpose for which it was given. Plaintiffs were asked to vacate the land and hand over the possession to the State Government Plaintiffs sent the reply that there was no breach of the terms of the agreement and the State Government was not entitled to take possession of the land. The plaintiffs sent notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice was also sent to U.I.T., Udaipur asking them not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land. Thereafter upon an application by the plaintiffs an agreement was entered into between them and the Collector and the U.I.T. which was subsequently approved by the State Government and communicated to the Collector vide letter dated April 21, 1971, and the plaintiffs were allowed to retain two bighas and 8 biswas of land on which building, structures and labour quarters were standing. They were to surrender 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land to the Housing Board, Udaipur which was given to them by the U.I.T. The plaintiffs surrendered that land in lieu of the compromise. On July 24, 1973 the Sub Divisional Officer Udaipur issued a notice to the plaintiff to vacate the premises etc. constructed on 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land also. On enquiry plaintiffs came to know that the State Government had set aside the order dated April 21, 1971 vide another Order dated March 29, 1972. It is this order dated March 29, 1972 which caused grievance to the plaintiffs and they filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the State Government not to disturb their peaceful enjoyment of the land and buildings standing on 2 bigbas and 8 biswas of land as stated earlier. They also sought a decree against the U.I.T. and Housing Board Udaipur for possession of 16 bighas &16 biswas of land on the ground that the State Government has gone back on the terms of the agreement under which plaintiffs had surrendered 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land. All the three appeallants contested the suit. The State Government came with a case that Bhanwarlal, father of the plaintiffs was allotted the land in question for the purpose of constructing the Glass Factory in the year 1946. That, the land was handed over to him. It was averred that Bhanwar Lal did not abide by the terms of the allotment and as the Glass Factory was not working the State Government had every right to resume the land It was also contended in the written statement that the Collector and the U.I.T. were not forced to enter into a compromise and if they had done so, it was not binding upon the State Government. That the land given by the U.I.T. to the Housing Society has been utilised for the construction of the houses in pursuance of the resumption order made by the State Government on July 26, 1955. On identical pleas, the U.I.T. also contested the suit. The Rajasthan Housing Board came with a case that 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land was given to them by the U.I.T. in the year 1971.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the praties following 7 issues were struck out by the learned trial Judge:
(1) Whether plaintiffs Harishchandra and his father Shri Bhanwarlal spent huge sums on the construction of buildings, labour quarters for the factory and started manufacturing glass wares in the year 1948 and continued to do so till December 1957 and fulfilled the conditions of the grant and what is its effect on the same?
(2) Whether the State Government has resumed the whole land allotted to the plaintiff on 26-7-55 and on 9-9-68 the possession of 17 bighas and 18 biswas land was taken by the State Government under the said order?
(3) Whether the Chairman of the U.I.T. and the Collector were not acting on behalf of the State of Rajasthan in arriving at a compromise dated 21-4-71 with the plaintiffs and it is not binding on the defendants. No. 1, 2 and 3.
(4) Whether the possession of only 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land was given by the plaintiff to the defendant under the terms of compromise?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to retain possession of entire 19 bighas and 4 bighas of land inspite of compromise on account of the defendant State cancelling their order dated 21-4-71?
(6) Whether the suit against U.I.T. is not maintainable without a notice under Section 95 of the U.I.T. Act?
(7) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to and in what manner.
4. Plaintiff Harish Chandra appreared in the witness box and examined three more witnesses. On behalf of the defendants-appellants 8 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge deciding various issues came to the conclusion that though Bhanwarlal had started the Glass Factory it did not continue to work after 1952, this was therefore, a breach of condition as it did not fulfill the condition by continuing the Glass Factory and contention of the plaintiffs that the factory continued to work after 1957 was not correct.
5. Issue No. 1 was decided partly in favour of plaintiffs and partly against them.
6. Issue No. 2 was also partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that the 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land was taken from the possession of the plaintiffs on July 26, 1955 and was not surrendered by the plaintiffs in terms of the compromise. It held that possession of 2 bighas and 8 biswas was kept by the plaintiffs. The compromise between the plaintiffs and the Collector and U.I.T. was held to have been approved by the State Government Vide Ex. 66 dated April 21, 1971 and it was held that the plaintiffs retained the possession of 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land.
7. Issue No. 3 was thus decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
8. The decision of issue No. 4 was that 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land was taken in possession by the State Government in pursuance of the order passed by it for resumption of the whole of the land on July 26, 1965.
9. Issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiffs and they were not held entitled to retain possession of whole land despite the compromise on account of the defendant cancelling their Order dated April 21, 1971.
10. Issue No. 6 was not pressed by the U.I.T. and as such decided against them.
11. In view of the findings for issue Nos. 1 to 5 a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against appellant-defendants was passed restraining them form dispossessing the plaintiffs from the buildings and structures on 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land, the area shown in the Red Line in the Map Ex. 19. The suit of the plaintiff for possession of 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land from the appellant-defendants was dismissed. The defendant-appellant filed appeal against the judgment and decree for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs (Respondent No. 1 and 2) also felt aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for possession of 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land and filed cross-objections. Applications were filed by Municipal Council, Udaipur and M/S. Vishramji Jethaji & Sons, Udaipur for being impleaded as parties and by the order dated August 1,1984 they were impleaded as respondent Nos. 3/4 respectively.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General has assailed the findings of the trial Court on the ground that is has erred in invoking the principle of estoppel in favour of the plaintiffs and against the State Government and holding that the State Government was estopped from cancelling the order dated April 21, 1971. That, the learned trial Judge should not have taken into consideration the plea of the compromise raised by the plaintiffs and their right to retain 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land and the structures erected thereupon. According to the learned Additional Advocate General plaintiff was in illegal possession of the land and the State Government was well within its right to dispossess them from that portion of the land even.
13. The cross-objection is based on the ground that the compromise was entered by the State Government on express condition that the plaintiffs would be entitled to retain 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land and the building standing thereupon and as that possession had been disturbed, the plaintiffs were entitled to get back the possession of 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land also which had been surrendered by them.
14. From the perusal of the occular and documentary evidence, there is no scope of interference in the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. The land was allotted to Bhanwarlal father of the plaintiffs with the specific condition that the same would be utilised for putting on and running Glass Factory but it was not utilised for the aforesaid purpose after 1952. That clearly amounted to breach of the terms of the allotment. As such there was justification in the Stats Government resuming the allotment in the year 1955. The learned trial Judge has rightly taken into consideration the compromise entered into between the plaintiffs, the Collector and the U.I.T. under which the plaintiffs were entitled to retain 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land on which building had been constructed and structure erected.
15. This being the position, the finding of the learned trial Judge that appellant-defendants were in error in disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the two bighas and 8 biswas of land and the building and structures thereupon stands justified and the decree for permanent injunction in that regard has been rightly passed in favour of the plaintiffs.
16. The learned trial Judge has not agreed with the plea of the plaintiffs that 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land was surrendered in terms of the compromise. The conclusion rather was that this land was taken in possession by virtue of order of resumption passed in the year 1955. The subsequent compromise had nothing to do with 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land. It was confined to the plaintiffs retaining 2 bighas and 8 biswas of land over which they had their construction and structures. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was right in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs for the decree for possession of 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land from the appellant-defendants.
17. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and is hereby dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) have also no substance and is hereby rejected. In the circumstances of the case, the costs are made easy.