Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15206 of 2018
Petitioner :- Hisamuddin
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Aqeel Ahmad,Ramesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Ravindra Nath Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Order on Impleadment Application Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an application filed by Sri R.N. Yadav, Advocate for impleading Afjal and Abusad as respondent nos. 8 and 9.
This application is allowed.
Let necessary impleadment be carried out today itself.
Order of Memo of Writ Petition Heard Sri Aqeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the newly added respondents.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the judgment and order dated 5th March, 2018 passed by the second respondent (Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur) in Revision No. 55 of 2018 as well as the orders dated 11th January, 2016, dated 28th August, 2017 and dated 29th December, 2017.
It is the case of the petitioner that the present dispute relates to Plot No. 683 Ka area 0.47 hectares situated at village Ashrafpur Usrahta, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur. Earlier a notice in ZA-Form 49Ka was issued against Nooruddin, father of the petitioner alleging that he had illegally occupied the said plot. During the aforesaid ejectment proceeding, the father of the petitioner died and as such the proceeding was dropped. Subsequently, a notice in ZA-Form 49A was issued to the petitioner and respondent nos. 5 and 7 alleging that the said plot belongs to Gaon Sabha and they have illegally occupied the same by constructing house.
On receipt of the same, petitioner filed objection that the said plot was allotted to several persons including the petitioner's father and they have constructed their houses and are residing therein prior of Zamindari. Therefore, it shall be deemed to be settled with the petitioner's father under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Class/Tehsildar Shahganj, Jaunpur without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to lead the evidence illegally passed the order of his ejectment and respondent nos. 5 to 7 dated 11th January, 2016. The petitioner filed a restoration application for recall of the same but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 28th August, 2017. On wrong advise petitioner again filed restoration application, which was also rejected vide order dated 29th December, 2017. Against the aforesaid orders, petitioner filed Revision No. 55 of 2018 under Sections 122B(A)/333 of the Land Revenue Act before the Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur. The said revision has also been dismissed vide order dated 5th March, 2018 by the Collector affirming the orders of the Assistant Collector. It is against these four orders that the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot in question being Abadi is a huge area over which large number of residential houses are constructed. It is further stated that the petitioner's residential house was constructed by his father before the date of vesting and the same shall be deemed to be settled with him under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. C.H. Act passed an order declaring the father of the petitioner to be Bhumidhar of Plot No. 1286M area . 20 hectare. The aforesaid order has been Incorporated in C.H. Form 23 part-1. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have passed the impugned orders without demarcating the land in dispute, which are illegal. The respondents have also not considered the argument of the raised and the records produced before them while passing the impugned orders. Hence the same are liable to be set aside. In support of the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon following two judgments:
1. Mannoo Prasad versus Upper Collector (Prashashan), Kanpur Dehat & Another; 2008 (105) RD 782, paragraph nos. 5 to 7 and;
2. Rameshwar Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. versus Teshildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Sambhal, Moradabad; 2009 (108) RD 453, paragraph no. 11.
Learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned counsel for the newly added respondents have supported the impugned orders and have opposed the case set up on behalf of the petitioner. Sri R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the private respondents states that the plot in question belongs to Gaon Sabha and the same is public purpose. The said plot cannot be granted to the petitioner. It is also stated that the there no permanent construction made by the petitioner and his father. There is only a temporary house constructed by Madaha and Tin Shed. In support of his case, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 9th February, 2015 passed in Writ-C No. 54062 of 2013 (Jagat Narain & 15 Others versus State of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 Others).
After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that a prima facie case is made out. Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to newly added respondent nos. 6 to 7 through ordinary process returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken within a week.
All the respondents are accorded four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have a week time file rejoinder affidavit, if any, thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, status quo as on today with regard to the land in question shall be maintained.
(M. C. Tripathi, J.)
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Sushil/-