Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19503 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abran Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramakant Dubey, learned State Law Officer.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to respondent no.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Firozabad to trace out the original record in which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jasrana, Distt. Firozabad vide its order dated 1.3.1981 and 16.2.1987 granted patta in favour of 27 villagers including the petitioner according to prescribed procedure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in arbitrary manner once name of the petitioner has been expunged in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of LR Act, the said order has been assailed by the petitioner by preferring Revision No.107/2004-05 in which vide order dated 20.04.2018 the Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra has set aside the order dated 6.12.2004 and remanded the matter back to the court below for considering the matter on merits of the case.
At present, the grievance of the petitioner is that so far as the proceeding, which were taken place in the year 1993 under Section 198 (4) of UPZA & LR Act the record/relevant papers pertaining to allotment and settlement of lease in favour of petitioner and other similar situated persons, are missing and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that once proceedings were initiated under Section 33/39 of LR Act and the petitioner had preferred revision against the order dated 6.12.2004 passed by the SDM concerned and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority, then definitely the authority would proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law and at this stage the petitioner cannot be permitted to ask for said papers. In case relevant papers are being asked and if the petitioner is beneficiary of the said allotment, then he has to produce the relevant papers.
Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner states that at present the petitioner is not pressing the writ petition with aforesaid relief but at the same time the proceeding, which has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 33/39 of LR Act may be directed to be decided on merits.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the SDM concerned to decide the proceeding in question pursuant to remand order dated 20.04.2018 by the revisional authority expeditiously.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SP/