JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. The present petition has its genesis in proceeding under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act and has been preferred assailing the order dated 21.3.2005 passed in revision No. 89 of 2003 by Upper Collector Bijnor and also the order dated 1.8.2003 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Chandpur District Bijnor,
2. It would appear from the record that upon initiation of proceeding under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act by Tahsildar Chandpur, the petitioner preferred objection claiming to be in authorised possession over the land as the same was allocated to him by the Pradhan of the, village on 9,8,1970 and also produced receipt. It would further appear that the receipt was found to be forged by the Tahsildar and damages to the extent of Rs. 22500/- were foisted upon him. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred revision, which also ended up in dismissal. It is in this perspective that the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The main-stay of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners have been in occupation of the land of Gaon Sabha on the basis of receipt issued by the then Gaon Pradhan in the year 1970 and further that the possession might be said to be illegal but the same cannot be condemned to be unauthorised and therefore, proceeds the argument, the proceedings for ejectment initiated under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not in accordance with law.
4. I have traversed upon the two orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 respectively with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and from a petitioner thereof, it would appear that the petitioner examined himself and one more witness and upon appraisal of evidence and materials on record, it was concurrently held by the two authorities that the statements of the two witnesses do not go to prove the authenticity of the receipt alleged to have been issued by then Pradhan of the Village. The two authorities also noticed that in the absence of any evidence on the point, no credence can be attached to the genuineness of the receipt and therefore, as a sequel, the revisional authority converged to the conclusion that there was no error or infirmity in the orders passed by the Tahsildar. From a perusal of the orders, I too do not find any infirmity or illegality in the approach of the authorities inasmuch as both the authorities have appraised the statements and materials on record in correct perspective and they have rightly converged to the conclusion.
5. The learned counsel laid too much stress on the aspect that damages awarded in the case are wholly unwarranted and without valid basis as receipt had been validly issued by the Pradhan. In my considered view, the receipt on which the petitioners claimed possession over the land having been held forged and in my view, it has rightly been held forged in view of not having been proved by any credible evidence on record, it necessarily follows that the possession of the petitioners was not only illegal ab initio but unauthorized also.
6. Yet another aspect to be considered in the matter to which the learned counsel for the petitioners has also alluded, is whether the Pradhan was empowered in law to allot land without following the procedure prescribed for such allotment. In this connection, it is worthy of notice that the land in question was state land, which came to be vested in Gaon Sabha. There is a procedure prescribed for allotment of abadi land under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and relevant Rules dealing with the procedure of allotment are Rules 115L and 115M of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Rule 115L(1) deals with the procedure to ear mark land for extension of abadi for Harijans and authorizes Asstt. Collector to earmark land for abadi sites in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 122C and also prescribes preparation of lists and extracts. Rule 115M deals with the procedure for allotment of land for construction of buildings for rasidential or charitable purposes or for purposes of cottage industry in the following order of preference to persons who are (a) 3 landless agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village, (b) a bhumidhar, sirdar and asami residing in the village and holding landless than 1026 hectares and (c) any other person residing in the village. Rule 115N (2) envisages 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). It is further envisaged that where more than one person belonging to the same order or 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. Reverting to the case in hand, as slated supra, the petitioners staked claim to the land on the basis of: allotment made by the Pradhan and produced receipts which have been held to be forged one by the two courts below, Even if it be assumed that the receipts were issued by the Pradhan, the allotment made by Pradrum without following the procedure prescribed cannot be held to be valid inasmuch it is clearly envisaged in the rules aforestated that allotment shall be made by the Land Management Committee in the manner prescribed in Rule 115 N. Rule 115 M enumerates the class of persons to whom such land could be allotted. At no stage, it has been claimed by the petitioners that the allotment was made in the meeting of the Land Management Committee and that he fell within the class as provided in Rule 115 M of the U.P.Z.A, & L.R. Rules. The case of the petitioners in substances is that the allotment was made by Pradhan who issued receipts as well in lieu of allotment and it has no where been urged that allotment was made by the Land Management Committee. It would thus appear that procedure as prescribed in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules has not been adhered to nor followed and allotment was not the result of any resolution adopted by Land Management Committee and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the possession of the land by the petitioners could be attached any validity I would not refrain from observing to what I have quite often noticed that the Pradhan of the village have been seen to be indulging In making reckless allotments sometime favouring their kith or k?n or those owing allegiance in the factious ridden village without caring for norms and following the procedures prescribed for allotment. It needs hardly be said that power does not vest in Pradhan alone and as a matter of fact, it is the Land Management Committee which is invested with the power of allotment that too after following the procedure as prescribed in Rules 115L and 115 M. Therefore, any receipt if at all, issued by Pradhan does not confer any right upon the petitioners and therefore conclusion is irresistible that the possession of petitioners is illegal ab initio and occupation of the Gaon Sabha land is wholly unauthorised,
7. On being queried further about any provision in the Rules, the learned counsel for the petitioners seemed reconciled and did not stretch his arguments any further in justification of the possession and occupation of the petitioners.
8. In the above conspectus, there is no error or infirmity in the orders and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.