Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19871 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajay Pal Singh and 4 others Respondent :- State Of U P and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tapan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Singh,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee. Shri Ashish Kumar Singh appears for the caveator.
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 30.8.2017 passed by the third respondent, Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Hapur, District Hapur in Case No.57/T20161173999042135 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Land Management Committee vs. Madan Pal Singh and others) and the orders dated 5.5.2018 and 8.11.2017 passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate/Collector, Hapur in Appeal No.D201711730684 (Madan Pal Singh vs. Land Management Committee) under Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and for direction to the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful use and possession over the Khasra No.56 area 0.0.12 hectare situated at Village Chhapkoli, Tehsil Sadar, District Hapur.
Record in question reflects that the Area Lekhpal submitted a report on 9.8.2016 before the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, District Hapur regarding illegal construction and encroachment over Gata No.56 area 0.012 hectares situated at Village Chhapkoli, Tehsil Sadar, District Hapur. Consequently, a notice was issued to the petitioners by the third respondent on Form 49-Ka and same was registered as Case No.T20161173999042135 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Gaon Sabha vs. Madan Pal Singh and others). In the aforesaid case, the petitioners filed their objection on 20.10.2016. Finally, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.8.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred an appeal No.D201711730684 (Madan Pal Singh vs. Land Management Committee) before the second respondent, District Magistrate/Collector, Hapur. By the impugned dated 8.11.2017 the second respondent has dismissed the appeal in question. The recall/restoration application filed by the petitioners was also rejected on 5.5.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was made by the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hapur on 10.2.2016 against the illegal encroachment on the Gaon Sabha land by Sahansar Pal and Gurvachan. Aggrieved with the said complaint, the concerned Lakhpal in collusion with Sahansar Pal, Gurvachan and the ex- Pradhan of the village namely Bhupendra Singh, submitted a false report against the petitioners on 9.8.2016 alleging that they have encroached Gata No.56, which is public utility land. The petitioners have not made any construction on the land in question, whereas the said constructions were made by the ancestors of the petitioners upon their own land prior to the consolidation proceeding in the year 1972. The petitioners are in possession of the land in question since the time of their ancestors. The said dispute was already decided by the civil court and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve the petitioners.
On the other hand, Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the order passed by the third respondent was upheld by the Appellate Court after considering the objection filed by the petitioners. After perusal of the records of the lower court and the evidence available on the record, the Appellate Court was of the view that the petitioners have illegally encroached the public utility land. The petitioners have not produced any evidence/proof to show that they have not illegally encroached the land in question. Moreover, the appellate authority has categorically recorded that the land in question is a public utility land.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagat Narain and others vs. State of UP and others, 2015 (3) ADJ 466 (DB) has held that once the revenue authority finds on the perusal of the evidence on record that a person is in unauthorized occupation of a Gaon Sabha land, the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be justified to grant any protection against eviction to such person on the ground that he has been in long settled possession over the land in question. The legislature has enacted a specific provision in Sub-Section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the UP ZA & LR Act, to provide benefit to such persons who fall in that category. The view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sukhdeo Vs. Collector, Banda, 2007 (102) RD, 83 that if a person is in possession for more than 12 years, instead of eviction, an award of damages would be appropriate relief was held to be a bad law.
Following the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagat Narain and others (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot be granted any benefit on the plea of long possession over the land in question.
For all the above noted reasons, no interference is required.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dissmised.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 RKP