Court No. - 59
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 4634 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bachchu Singh Respondent :- Sate Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Nath Mishra,Nitya Nand Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Issue notice to the respondents No.5 to 7.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents No.5 to 7 have illegally encroached the Gaon Sabha property.
The proceedings u/s 122 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 were initiated against the respondents No.5 to 7. The Authorities arrived at a conclusion that respondents No.5 to 7 have illegally encroached the public utility land and the proceedings u/s 122 B are finalized against respondents No.5 to 7. The decision taken u/s 122-B, was challenged by the respondents before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority partly allowed the revision against which order of the Revisional Authority, the respondents No.5 to 7 approached this Court by means of Writ C Nos. 32343, 36847 and 36848 of 2016 respectively. All the above writ petitions are dismissed by this Court and the following orders are passed which are quoted hereinbelow:-
In Writ C No.32343 of 2016
Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amresh Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4, Land Management Committee as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act, wherein the Tehsildar directed eviction of the petitioner from portion of plot no.271 Kha vide order dated 04.08.2012.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision which had allowed on 29.02.2016 and the matter has been remanded back for a fresh decision.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot in question is a very big one and that his eviction is sought from a very small portion thereof. Although, part of this large plot has been reserved for a school during the consolidation operations, in the map, the area which has been so reserved is not demarcated. It is therefore not clear where the area reserved actually lies; the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act therefore cannot be continued because any correction/ demarcation in the map can only be ordered by the Collector and not by the Tehsildar. He further claims that the land in question is his ancestral land and he is wrongly sought to be evicted therefrom.
In my considered opinion, the submissions that have been made for devoid of substance. I do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that eviction proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act cannot be initiated or maintained only on the ground that the map has not been rightly prepared. The question as to the area of the plot in question which has been reserved for a school during consolidation operations can easily be determined from the orders that have been passed by the Consolidation Authorities themselves.
In so far as the submission that the land in question is the ancestral land of the petitioner or his ancestral abadi cannot be accepted because learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that no such claim was raised by him during the consolidation operations which have necessarily intervened because it is his admitted case that portion of plot in question has been reserved for a public purpose during consolidation operations.
Since the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner have been repelled, I do not find any illegality in the proceedings drawn against the petitioner for his eviction under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The order of remand also calls for no interference.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
In Writ C Nos.36847 & 36848 of 2016
Heard Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha Vikrampur Charsaura, Budaun and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents.
These two writ petitions are both directed against the same order dated 29.2.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2-Collector, Budaun. These petitions have, therefore, been heard and are being decided by a common order.
Yet, another Writ Petition No. 32343 of 2016 (Ramesh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) had earlier been filed challenging the same order, which is impugned in these writ petitions. The said Writ Petition No. 32343 of 2016 was dismissed vide order dated 18.7.2016 and the impugned order dated 29.2.2016, which is an order of remand, was affirmed.
Since, the order impugned in these two writ petitions has also been affirmed by me vide order dated 18.7.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 32343 of 2016, these two writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed for the reasons given in my order dated 18.7.2016.
These writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even after the dismissal of the above writ petitions, still respondents No.5 to 7 with the collusion of the respondents' authority are illegally occupying the public utility land.
The issue is serious.
It is, however, submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that according to the documents which are enclosed by the petitioner along with the present writ petition, the proceedings u/s 122 B are still pending. In reply thereto, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that infact the respondents No.5 to 7 are taking the shelter of their recall application said to be pending before the Tehsildar.
In the aforesaid background, this Court proposes to direct as follows:-
The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, whosoever is concerned, is hereby, directed to dispose of all the pending proceedings positively before 30.11.2018, after providing opportunity to all concerned and futher after decision, the copies of the decisions be placed before the District Magistrate, Badaun who shall ensure that the compliance of the orders passed by this Court as well as the removal of the illegal encroachment of the respondents No.5 to 7 from the property which is meant for the public utility. The action by the respondents be taken, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018/Rishabh