Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20806 of 2018 Petitioner :- Deep Chand Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neetu Gupta,Manta Ram Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 9.3.2016 and 1.4.2018 passed by respondent no.3 and for a direction to respondent no.3 not to demolish the house situated in plot in dispute.
The record in question reflects that one Kapildev had filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.19326 of 2015 (Kapildev v. State of U.P. & Ors.) in which the Division Bench had passed the following order on 8.4.2015:-
"The petitioner, invoking the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation, seeks the removal of an alleged encroachment made on public utility land, comprising of Gata No. 265 area .1720 hectare recorded as 'Khalihan' situated at Village Bhadsa, Post Singera, Tehsil Muhammdabad, District Ghazipur.
Since a statutory remedy is available under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grievance. However, since the statutory remedy is available, we permit the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the Assistant Collector who shall, upon verification of facts, initiate a proceeding under Section 122-B of the Act if the facts and circumstances of the case so justify. In the event, such proceeding is initiated, an expeditious decision shall be taken thereon.
We, however, clarify that all facts shall be subject to due verification and any proceeding that may be adopted will be with due notice to all the affected parties.
With these observations, we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order as to costs."
Thereafter, proceeding under Section 122-B of UPZA & LR Act has been initiated against the petitioner and opportunity has been extended to him. As per order impugned this much is reflected that inspite of ample opportunity and notice at no point of time any concrete material had been produced before the authority concerned to substantiate his claim that at any point of time due allotment had been made in the matter. In the order impugned dated 9.3.2016 the SDM concerned has clearly observed that inspite of ample opportunity no evidence has been brought on record to reveal that at any point of time any due allotment has been made. Moreover this has also been observed that the alleged claim has been set up over 'khalihan', which is public utility land and no allotment under Section 132 of UPZA & LR Act can be ensured. This much is also reflected that once the order passed by the Division Bench has not been complied with, Kapildev had filed Contempt Application (Civil) No.348 of 2016, wherein the affidavit of compliance has been filed but the contempt Court was also of the opinion that at no point of time the order passed by the Division Bench has been complied with. Consequently, notice has been issued and final order has been passed for ejectment and demolition of the house.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders impugned on the ground that allotment took place in the year 1986. This is moreover admitted situation that Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid PIL has passed order for drawing proceeding under Section 122-B of UPZA & LR Act and admittedly the order impugned has been passed in the said proceeding. Even contempt proceeding has also been initiated. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate or suggest that allotment, which is allegedly claimed over the public utility land under Section 132 of UPZA & LR Act can be substantiated by any law.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 SP/