Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12154 of 2021 Petitioner :- Akida Bano Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Saran Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Sharad Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Gaon Sabha.
The learned trial court/Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sirathu, District-Kaushambi in proceedings taken out under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 records that the disputed parcel of land, namely, Gata No.471 meter is entered as banjar land in the revenue records and is Gaon Sabha land. The petitioner has encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land and has erected a house and a shop. The physical inspection of the site was carried out which confirmed the said encroachment.
The learned appellate court/Collector, Kaushambi in the impugned order dated 23.02.2021agreed with the findings of the learned trial court and in the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 affirmed the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the learned trial court/Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sirathu, District- Kaushambi.
Reliance on the injunction passed by the learned civil court in favour of the petitioner is of no avail. The Gaon Sabha is not a party to the suit proceedings. Secondly, the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court had passed the injunctions completely overlooking the fact that the land in dispute is covered by the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which is a complete code and the jurisdiction of the learned civil court is ousted in such matters.
The petitioner could not bring any evidence to dispute the aforesaid findings before both the learned courts below. No perversity in the findings or illegality in the order is established from the pleadings and the record, nor were they otherwise pointed out in the arguments. Further, there is nothing in the record of the writ petition to warrant interference in the impugned orders.
For reasons best known to the petitioner, she did not appear before the learned appellate court on the date of hearing. The petitioner cannot be granted any benefit of her own default.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Ashish Tripathi