Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5389 of 2018 Petitioner :- Maqbool Hasan Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bipin Lal Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to bring on record certain orders passed in proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, against the petitioner with regard to his unauthorized occupation of Plot No.235.
It appears that in a revision arising out of an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. C.H. Act, plot no. 235, which had been reserved for a public purpose in the statement of Principles was declared chak out on the ground that it was petitioner's original holding and valuable road side land. The petitioner now seeks implementation of this order dated 17.04.2006 by means of an application under Rule 109-A. The Consolidation Officer on 07.05.2018 directed issuance of a parwana amaldaramad for this purpose, which order has been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2018.
Prima facie, the petitioner could not be the original holder of Plot No.235, in case, proceedings under Section 122-B had been drawn against him regarding this same plot. His status in such a situation would be nothing beyond that of an unauthorized occupant.
It would also be relevant to note that the petitioner appears to be Muslim by caste. Therefore, there is no way, the provisions of sub-section 4-f of Section 122-B to be applicable to him.
The case of the respondents is that the order dated 17.04.2006 was obtained fraudulently and an application for its recall is pending consideration.
In any case the order dated 17.04.2006 is patently illegal as it could not have been passed in an objection under Section 20 of the Act, filed by a person alleging himself to be the original holder of plot no. 235, as such objection would be barred by Section 11A of the Act. An original holder of a plot could have filed an objection under Section 9B, in case he was aggrieved by reservation of his original plot for a public purpose in the Statement of Principles. No such objection is stated to have been filed.
In view of what has been stated above, the petitioner has no case at all. The order dated 27.04.2018 therefore, in the aforenoted facts and circumstances a perfectly correct and justified order, which call for no interference.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Jitendra