JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. PJ. Gupta, who has" appeared for respondent No. 3.
2. Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. (for short the 'Act'), and is directed against the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. It appears that proceedings under Section 122B of the Act were initiated against the petitioner by issuance of notice on the prescribed form No. 49A. On receipt of the notice, petitioner filed objection, claiming that the land in dispute was allotted in his favour by the land management committee of Gaon Sabha. He was, therefore, not rank trespasser and cannot be said to be unauthorised occupant of the Gaon Sabha property. The proceedings, were therefore, according to, him, liable to be dropped.
4. Parties have produced evidence, oral and documentary in support of their cases.
5. Respondent No. 2 after going through the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the land in dispute were recorded as Gaon Sabha property and that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant of the same. It was also held that the petitioner failed to prove that the land was ever allotted in his favour, in accordance with law. Having recorded the said findings, order for ejectment and recovery of damages was passed on 28.2.97. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, petitioner filed revision before respondent' No. 1. Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 13.8.98 by the said respondent. Revisional court also affirmed the findings recorded by respondent No. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts that the land was allotted to the petitioner by the land management committed and on the basis of which the petitioner occupied the land and raised constructions, the petitioner cannot be held to be trespasser or a person in unauthorised occupation of Gramsabha property. The proceedings initiated against him under Section 122B of the Act was, therefore, misconceived and the orders impugned in the writ petition, are liable to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Gaonsabha. has supported the validity of the Impugned orders. It has been urged that the petitioner has failed to prove that the land was ever allotted to him, in accordance with law, therefore, he was nothing but a rank trespasser or an unauthorised occupant of Gramsabha property. Therefore, the authorities below have rightly passed the orders against him.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
9. The allotment of Abadi sites can be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Procedure for allotment has been provided under the Rules framed under the Act. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 115NC, provides that all allotment shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under sub-rule (1), Where more than one person belonging to the same order of preference express their desire to be allotted a particular site, the said Committee shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted. It also provides that the prior approval of the Assistant Collector, incharge of the Sub-Division shall be obtained for every allotment under Rule 115L or 115M.
10. The authorities below have recorded clear and categorical findings to the effect that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that the land in dispute was 'ever allotted in his favour, in accordance with law. It was neither pleaded, nor proved that prior approval of the Assistant Collector, incharge of the Sub-Division was ever obtained for the allotment alleged to have been made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the allotment. If any made, was wholly void and nan est and on the basis of the same, petitioner cannot claim any right or title on the land in dispute. The authorities below, therefore, committed no error of law or jurisdiction in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and passing the orders for ejectment and recovery of damages for the use and occupation of the land in dispute. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 381 of 1998, Abdul Rauf Khon v. Abdut Samad and others, decided on 9.10.1998. The petition has got no merit. Same fails and is dismissed in limine.