Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13977 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M Kaushilya P. G. College Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girja Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Madiyahun, Jaunpur (respondent no.2) to ensure for providing the legal possession in favour of petitioner over the gata no. 560 area 0.032, gata no. 560/2 area 0.008, gata no. 605/2 area 0.052, gata no. 605/3 area 0.049 and gata no. 605/5 area 0.036 and gata no. 605/6 area 0.016 hectare total 6 (six) gatas and total area 194 hectare situated in village Dilawarpur, Tehsil Madiyahun, District Jaunpur with the name of Kaushilya P.G. College, by following the Section 24(2) (b) of U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006."
It has been submitted that in proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code for demarcation, demarcation was made by the revenue authorities. However, the petitioner was not put in possession over land which belongs to the petitioner institution. It has also been submitted that one Ram Asharey is in possession over the said land.
From a perusal of the record, it transpires that Ram Asharey is not a party in the writ petition. Ram Asharey also does not appear to have been impleaded as a party in the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code.
It is however submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Ram Asharey was present on the spot when actual demarcation was made.
Be that as it may, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to be put in possession after dispossessing Ram Asharey who is unauthorizely occupying land of the institution, in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted.
The power conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 24 could not have been exercised. This power could have been exercised only if there were two rival claimants claiming to be in possession over the land demarcated.
Since Ram Asharey was not impleaded as a party in the demarcation proceedings, no order to his detriment could have been passed, nor could Ram Asharey have been evicted or dispossessed in the proceedings and the petitioner put in possession.
Under the circumstances, the instant writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to sue for possession of the land in question.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Mayank