Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1568 of 2007. Narayan Singh Rawat. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and 2 others. … Respondents. WITH (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1572 of 2007. Ram Chandra Singh Rana. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (2)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1573 of 2007. Smt. Savitri Devi. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (3)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1574 of 2007. Sanjay Aggarwal. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (4)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1579 of 2007. Krishan Lal Saluja. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. 2 (5)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1580 of 2007. Jagdish Chandra Gawri. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (6)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1581 of 2007. Prahlad Agarwal. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (7)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1582 of 2007. Purshottam Kukreja. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (8) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1583 of 2007. Smt. Rukmani Devi. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (9) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1584 of 2007. Veer Singh Rana. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (10) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1585 of 2007. Sambhu Nath. … Petitioner. 3 Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (11) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1586 of 2007. Krishan Lal Sharma. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (12) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1587 of 2007. Smt. Prem Lata Sharma. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (13) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1588 of 2007. Narayan Singh Rana. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (14) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1589 of 2007. Kewal Krishna Gawri. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (15)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1590 of 2007. Kailash Prasad Garg. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. 4 (16) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1597 of 2007. Manoj Porwal. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (17) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1598 of 2007. Indra Prakash Agarwal. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder of the State for the respondent No.1 &2. Sri S.K.Mandal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Bharat Sadhu Samaj. (18) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2006 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its establishment at (Swarg Ashram) Parmarth Niketan, Revenue Village Jaunk, Patti Udaipur, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, through its Managing Trustee Swami Chinmaya Nand Saraswati. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (19)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2007 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (20) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2008 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. 5 State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (21) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2009 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (22)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2010 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (23)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2011 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (24)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2012 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (25)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2013 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (26)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2014 of 2007. 6 Swami Sukhdevanand Trust. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (27)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2015 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (28)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2016 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (29)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2017 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (30)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2018 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (31)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2019 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. 7 State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (32)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2020 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (33)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2021 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (34)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2022 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (35)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2023 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (36)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2024 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (37)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2025 of 2007. 8 Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (38)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2026 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (39)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2027 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (40)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2028 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (41)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2029 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (42)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2030 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. 9 State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (43)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2031 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (44)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2032 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (45)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2033 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (46)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2034 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (47)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2035 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (48)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2036 of 2007. 10 Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (49)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2037 of 2007. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder of the State for the respondent No.1 to 3. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. Sri S.K.Mandal, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent no.5 Bharat Sadhu Samaj. (50)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2220 of 2007. Pooja Rajput … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand through Collector Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal and others. … Respondents. (51)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2222 of 2007. Vijay Chopra. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (52)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2223 of 2007. Ram Krishna Pokhariyal … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. 11 (53)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2224 of 2007. Hari Prasad. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (54)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2227 of 2007. Rajeev Gupta … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (55)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2228 of 2007. Vimla Pokhariyal … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (56)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2229 of 2007. Khem Chand Gahlaut. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (57)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2230 of 2007. Raman Chopra … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (58)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2231 of 2007. Pooran Lal … Petitioner. 12 Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. (59)Writ Petition (M/S) No. 18 of 2008. Dinesh Paliwal and another … Petitioners. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla with Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder of the State for the respondent No.1 &2. Sri S.K.Mandal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-Bharat Sadhu Samaj. Date July 23, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Since the controversy involved in all these 60 writ petitions are similar and the orders under challenge in all these writ petitions are the same, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these writ petitions are being disposed of finally by this common order at the admission stage by the consent of the parties. Since the Writ Petition 2006 of 2007 (MS) is already admitted, the same is being decided on merits along with other 59 writ petitions. 2. The background fact in nutshell giving rise to the present writ petitions is that the Deputy Commissioner (now Zila Adhikari) Garhwal granted a lease of Nazul land in favour of Geeta Bhawan on 11-8-1950, which was granted for a period of forty years and consequently, a lease deed pertaining to 23 Nali land of old plot No. 1 (new Plot No. 63) situated in village Jaunk, Tok Swargashram, Patti Talla Udaipur,, District Pauri Garhwal was executed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal, in favour of Geeta Bhawan, Swargashram on 6-10-1950, which was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Lansdowne (Garhwal). The period of the said lease was 13 to expire on 5-10-1990. It appears that Sub Divisional Officer Kotdwar made a report to the District Magistrate that Bharat Sadhu Samaj had taken forcible possession over 18,12/16 Nali of the lease land granted in favour of Geeta Bhawan. It was found that about 40- 45 shop keepers are in occupation of the shops constructed over the said land and Bharat Sadhu Samaj was collecting rent from the tenants. Accordingly, notice was issued by the District Magistrate, Garhwal to the Manager, Geeta Bhawan to show cause why the lease granted in its favour be not cancelled for violation of terms and conditions of the lease. It also emerges out from the record that the Deputy Commissioner/Zila Adhikari Garhwal, by his order dated 21-9-1988 passed in Case No. 13 of 1986-87 had cancelled the lease deed granted in favour of Geeta Bhawan as the lessee had violated the terms and conditions of the lease. It was also observed that since the lessee Geeta Bhawan had constructed pucca building/Ghat in an area of 2,8/16 Nali only, hence the lease to that effect may be granted in its favour on application for the same having been made. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the Patwari Patti Udaipur Talla filed Challani report along with copies of site plan, Khasara and Khatauni against the alleged illegal occupants before the Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Kotdwar, who in turn on the basis of challani report issued notices under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 (for short the Act) to the alleged illegal occupants as to why eviction proceedings be not initiated against them. They filed their written objection before the Prescribed Authority contending that the notice is not based on facts. They admitted their occupation on the part of the land under reference. It was also contended that the occupation of the opposite party is not illegal rather on the basis of permission of the government and that the District Magistrate Pauri Garhwal has proposed to grant lease to the occupants by letter dated 27-2-1989. The petitioners have spent huge amount thereon to make the 14 premises fit for business. The notice is barred by the principle of promissory estopple and not legally tenable. 4. In support of its case, the State has examined Sri Anil Negi, the Patwari concerned of the area, who proved the challani report filed by him before the Prescribed Authority. 5. The record reveals that during the pendency of the proceedings initiated before the Prescribed Authority under Sections 4/5 of the Act, Swami Sukhdevanand Trust Parmarth Niketan (for short the Trust) moved an application before the Prescribed Authority on 2-12-2000 for its impleadment as opposite party in the proceedings contending that the Trust is an affected party and its interest is involved in the disputed premises. The application of the Trust was allowed and the Prescribed Authority served copy of notice dated 2- 11-1998 under Section 4(1) of the Act on the Trust. The Trust filed its objection contending that huge properties of the Trust are standing at Swarg Ashram, village Jaunk. Notice is against the facts and not sustainable in law. It was also contended that the challani report dated 30-10-98 has not been made part of the notice. It was also alleged that the Trust has been in possession of the disputed premises. It was further alleged that the Prescribed Authority has not applied its mind in issuing the notice. It was further alleged that plot nos. 63 and 64 are in continuous possession of the Trust since 1958-59 and trust has invested huge amount in the constructions raised thereon. The State intended to oust the Trust, hence the Trust filed a Civil Suit No. 3 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pauri Garhwal. The Trust has perfected its rights over the disputed premises on the basis of its long standing possession and no suit was filed within a period of 30 years for eviction of the Trust. 6. It also reveals from a perusal of the record that the respondent-Bharat Sadhu Samaj (for short the Samaj) also moved an application on 31-5-2000 before the Prescribed Authority contending 15 therein that the Samaj had constructed the shops in dispute about 40 years back. It was also alleged that the land was sublet by Geeta Bhawan in favour of the Samaj and the Samaj is in physical possession of the disputed premises. The alleged shopkeepers are paying rent to the Samaj and they are the tenants of the Samaj. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application for impleadment moved by the Samaj and accordingly, a copy of the notice dated 2-11-1998 was supplied to the Samaj. The Samaj filed his objection and contended that the disputed portion of the land of plot no. 63 of village Jaunk, which was earlier recorded in the name of the State of Uttar Pradesh, had been leased out in favour of the Samaj by Zila Adhikari Pauri Garhwal and the Samaj had constructed building and shops thereon and let out the shops on rent. The lease was illegally cancelled on 21- 09-1988 by the District Magistrate Pauri. Though no appeal was filed against the said order, the Commissioner has stayed the operation of the order passed by the District Magistrate on 29-08-1989. It was also contended in the objection that the Trust filed a Suit No. 3 of 1990 against the State of U.P. and the Samaj in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pauri, which was decreed. The Samaj also alleged that it preferred appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the said Court before the Allahabad High Court, which is still pending. 7. It is also obvious from the record that the occupants further filed additional reply before the Prescribed Authority contending that the notice is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Patwari filed challani report wrongly and have raised certain pleas therein, which shall be dealt with in the latter part of the judgment as and when required. 8. The Prescribed Authority after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of evidence led before him ultimately confirmed the notices issued on 2-11-1998, dated 26.8.2000 and 27-1- 2001 and passed the order of eviction against each of them by order dated 18-11-2002. 16 9. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18-11-2002, a number of Miscellaneous Civil Appeals were preferred separately by the persons including the Samaj and the Trust against whom the order of eviction was passed by the Prescribed Authority. According to the petitioners, the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kotdwar during the pendency of the said appeals, on the application made by the petitioners/alleged shopkeepers directed the Amin concerned to verify the land of plot Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 of village Jaunk (Swarg Ashram), who in turn submitted his report. The petitioners are said to have filed application before the appellate court to bring on record the Amin’s report as additional evidence which was allowed and the Amin’s report was taken on record. Report of Amin was not proved at any stage. Ultimately, the Appellate Court allowed some of the appeals by a common judgment and order dated 6-9-2005. It is obvious from the record that the State of Uttarakhand challenged the said order passed by the appellate court by filing writ petitions before this Court. Ultimately, this Court by an order dated 18-5-2006 passed in Writ Petition (MS) Nos. 457 of 2006, 459 of 2006, 460 of 2006, 461 of 2006 and 462 of 2006 remanded the matter to the District Judge for decision afresh for deciding all the appeals afresh after awaiting the results of the proceeding with regard to the cancellation of the lease. 10. After remand, the District Judge Pauri Garhwal, consolidated all the 84 Misc. Civil Appeals together and after hearing learned counsel for all the parties dismissed the appeals by a common order dated 6-8-2007, which is impugned in these writ petitions. 11. There are two sets of petitioners- one set of petitioners claim themselves to be tenants of the disputed premises and the other is the Trust, which alleges itself to be the owner thereof. The petitioner in each of the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1568, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 17 1589, 1590, 1597, 1598 of 2007, 2220 of 2007, 2222 of 2007, 2223 of 2007, 2224 of 2007, 2227 of 2007, 2228 of 2007, 2229 of 2007, 2230 of 2007, 2231 of 2007 and 18 of 2008 have claimed themselves to be tenants of the Samaj-respondent for a period of more than 35 years or so and alleged that they are running shops in the disputed premises. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 18-11-2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar passed in separate cases under the Act as well as the order dated 6-8-2007 passed by the appellate court (District Judge, Pauri Garhwal) in different Miscellaneous Appeals. Some of the petitioners also challenged the notice dated 2-11-1998 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 12. Writ Petition (M/S) Nos. 2006 of 2007, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027,2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036 and 2037 of 2007 have been preferred by the Trust, which alleged itself to be owner of the disputed premises. The Trust has challenged the order dated 18-11-2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the order dated 6-8-2007 passed by the appellate court and the notices dated 2-11-1998, 26-8-2000 and 22-2- 2001 issued by the Prescribed Authority under Section 4(1) of the Act. 13. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners (other than the Trust) mainly on the ground that the petitioners are running their respective shops on rent under the tenancy of the Samaj- respondent and they are paying regular rent to it, therefore, they cannot be treated to be an unauthorized occupant of the disputed premises. By way of supplementary affidavits, the petitioners have filed a number of copies of documents including photocopy of lease deed dated 6-10-1950 executed in favour of Geeta Bhawan (Swag Ashram), copy of Katkannama (sub-lease) executed on 4-5-1955 by the representative of Geeta Bhawan in favour of the Samaj, photocopy of judgment and order dated 18-6-1957 passed in Civil Suit No. 92 of 18 1955 by the then Munsif Lansdowne, Garhwal, which were neither filed by them either before the Prescribed Authority or the appellate court. These documents shall be referred to in this judgment within the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as and when required. 14. The Trust has preferred the writ petitions against the State of Uttarakhand as well as the alleged tenants/shopkeepers and the Samaj stating that the petitioner is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act and is a charitable and religious institution duly registered by the Government of India and is entitled to exemptions under Section 80(G) and Section 10 of the Income Tax Act. It is alleged that the petitioner has vast properties and buildings and the main office of the petitioner-Trust is situated in the name and style of Parmarth Niketan in Swarg Ashram (Rishikesh) in revenue village Jaunk, Tehsil Kotdwar ( now Yamkeshwar). The petitioner Trust is providing services, medical and education and other services to the society at large. The Trust also claims itself to be owner in possession of various shops and premises situated in Khasra Nos. 63 and 60 on the eastern bank of river Ganges in Swarg Ashram. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner had constructed the shops in the year 1958-59. It is also alleged that proceedings for ejectment in respect of plot no. 63 were started against one Swami Nitya Nand, but the same was withdrawn by order dated 12-6-1986 passed by S.D.M. Kotdwar in P.L.E. Case No. 13 of 1986. 15. The petitioner-Trust filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pauri Garhwal against the State of U.P., Zila Parishad, Bharat Sadhu Samaj and the alleged shopkeepers, who were represented through Swarg Ashram Vyapar Mandal. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 3 of 1990 Swami Sukhdevanand Trust Vs. State and others. Ultimately, by judgment and decree dated 23-4-1998, the suit was partly decreed. It was ordered that the plaintiff shall not be evicted from plot no. 63 and 64 19 situated in village Jaunk, Patti Udaipur Talla except by due process of law. Suit in respect of plot nos. 65 to 71 was dismissed. Counterclaim filed by Bharat Sadhu Samaj was also dismissed. Appeals were preferred before this Court by the Samaj and Swarg Ashram Vyapaar Mandal separately, which were dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13-8-2004 and 10-8-2004 respectively. On the strength of the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 3 of 1990, the Trust claims ownership over the disputed premises, though the fact remains that in the suit, the State was restrained to proceed for eviction against the Trust except by due process of law. 16. On 2-7-2009, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Samaj wherein it has been stated that the possession of plot no. 63 was handed over to Swami Krishnanand Chela Sri Swami Kewalanand Ji through Katkannama executed by the General Power of Attorney Holder of Geeta Bhawan on 5-5-1955. It was also stated that on 23-3-1960, a lease deed was executed in favour of the Samaj on 23.3.1960 in respect of total 42.11 Nali of land pertaining to old plot nos. 34, 35 and 36 (new Nos. 64, 65 and 66) situated at village Jaunk, Patti Talla Udaipur. It has been stated that the possession of land of plot nos. 34, 35 and 36 is with the Samaj since before 1958 onwards. It has also been stated that Geeta Bhawan filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 92 of 1955 Raghuvir Singh Vs. Swami Krishnanand and Swami Sukhdevanand. In that suit, Swami Krishna nand and Swami Sukhdevanand were arrayed as defendants, but neither Bharat Sadhu Samaj or Sukhdevanand Trust were represented through these defendants. In that suit, it was found by the trial court that Swami Krishnanand owned an Ashram in plot no. 34, 35 and 36.