Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39072 of 2018
Petitioner :- Nafeesa
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
An affidavit of Sri Hamid Hussain, the Tehsildar, filed today be kept on record.
The petitioner had prayed before this Court that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent - Sub Divisional Magistrate - Nagina, District - Bijnor, not to dispossess the petitioner from his plot no. 27 village Shah Alipur Jaman, Post Office Raipur Sadat District - Bijnor.
The allegation made in the writ petition was that action for removal of certain constructions of the petitioner were taken without adhering to any procedure of law.
Upon instructions being called, a personal affidavit of the Tehsildar, Sri Devendra Kumar Pandey, the respondent no. 3, was filed on 5.2.2019. When there were certain facts which were not clear from the affidavit, a further affidavit was asked for.
Today, also a personal affidavit has been filed by one Sri Hamid Hussain, the Tehsildar. In it an enquiry report has also been annexed at page 7 in which after an enquiry findings on three issues had been arrived at which are being reproduced here as under:-
“ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iz;kxjkt ds vkns'k fnukad 05-02- 2019 esa tkap fd;s tkus gsrq fu?kkZfjr fcUnqvksa ij fcUnqokj vk[;k fuEuor~ gS%&
fcUnq la[;k&1%&
fjV iVh'ku ds ist la0&14 ,oa 'kiFk&i= ds ist la[;k&17 ds lEcU/k esa dguk gS fd nksuksa QksVksxzkQl ,d gh xkVk la[;k ds gS] fdUrq QksVksxzQ~l esa fn[kkbZ ns jgs Hkou 40&50 o"kZ iqjkus ;kph o vU; ds cus gq, tks iDdh lM+d ls yxs gq, gS rFkk voS/k dCts ds LFkku ls yxHkx 60 ehVj nwj if'pe dh vksj gS] ftlds chp esa rhu edku iqjkus cus gSA lqyHkZ lUnHkZ gsrq utjh uD'kk layXu gSA
fcUnq la[;k&2%&
bl fcUnq ds lEcU/k es a ;g dguk gS fd m0iz0 jktLo l af grk dh /kkjk&67 vFkok 136 ds vUrxZr dksbZ uksfVl tkjh ugh fd;k x;k gSA pwafd voS/k dCtk dh f'kdk;r rRdky izkIr gqbZ Fkh] ftl ij {ks=h; ys[kiky }kjk Hkh rRdky dk;Zokgh miftykf/kdkjh uxhuk ds vkns'k ,oa funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa dh x;hA miftykf/kdkjh uxhuk ds vkns'k ,oa funsZ'k ls xzke lHkk lEifRr ij tcjnLrh dCtk ugha gks ik;k ,oa 'kkafr O;oLFkk cuh jgha] ftlds vUrxZr ,d vksj gh fufeZr Ms<+ fQV Åaph uhao dks gVok;kA {ks=h; ys[kiky@lfpo Hkwfe izcU/kd lfefr ,oa jktLo fujh{kd }kjk dksbZ fjiksVZ rglhynkj Lrj ij ugha nh x;hA izdj.k dh tkudkjh rglhynkj uxhuk ds l aKku es a u vkus ds dkj.k /kkjk&67 dh uksfVl tkjh ugh a fd;k x;k gSA xzke lHkk dh blh Hkwfe ij vU; cus voS/k edkuksa ds fy, ys[kiky }kjk dksbZ fjiksZV vUrxZr /kkjk&67 u nsus ds fy, {ks=h; ys[kiky dh bl =`fV ds fy, mls izfrdwy izfof"V rglhynkj }kjk iznku dh x;h gSA
fcUnq la[;k&3%&
tkap esa O;fDrxr 'kiFk&i= ds ist ua0&19 ij nkf[ky uksfVl m0iz0 jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk&67 ds mn~ns'; ls tkjh fd;k gqvk ugha ik;k x;kA {ks=h; ys[kiky us fnukad 22-09-2018 ,oa fnukad 06-10-2018 dks nks uksfVls Lo;a tkjh dh gSA rglhynkj ,oa miftykf/kdkjh uxhuk }kjk izsf"kr fjiksVZ ls Li"V gS fd mlds laKku esa ;g rF; Fks fd voS/k v/;klh dks voS/k v/;klu djus ls jksdk x;k ,oa uksfVl nh x;hA ;g nksuksa uksfVl ys[kiky Lrj ls tkjh dh x;hA m0iz0 jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk&67 ,oa 136 ds vUrxZr ugha tkjh dh x;h gSA ;g uksfVls xzke lHkk fgr dh gS] fdUrq fdlh fof/k O;oLFkk ds rgr tkjh ugha dh x;h gSA tkap lfefr dh fjiksVZ ds dze esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] tkap lfefr dh fjiksVZ ls lger gksrs gq,] rglhynkj uxhuk dks vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd tuin Lrjh; tkap fjiksVZ dks fu;r frfFk ls iwoZ eq[; LFkkbZ vf/koDrk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iz;kxjkt ds ek/;e ls fu;r frfFk ij nkf[ky djkdj izHkkoh iSjoh djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA tuin Lrjh; la;qDr tkap lfefr dh fjiksVZ] vk[;k dk vax jgsxhA”
The findings state that certain unauthorized constructions were being made by the petitioner which had to be removed. However, while removing them the established procedure of law was not adhered to and summarily action was taken.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities had virtually admitted that this kind of action should not have been taken. He submits that if any action was to be taken for the removal of illegal encroachments then it should have been so taken under the procedures established by law.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with a direction that if any action is taken against the petitioner it shall be taken only after adhering to the procedure established by law.
The personal appearance of the Tehsildar is exempted.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 praveen.
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)