Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20397 of 2019 Petitioner :- Narayan Das Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakti Shanker Tiwari,Shri Rakesh Pandey Senior Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shakti S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondent no. 5.
Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that report/eviction dated 31.5.2010 was submitted by the area Lekhpal intimating that the Arazi No. 6M/0.016 hectare, 9/0.006 hectare, 14/0.024 hectare and 24m/0.012 hectare of village Haiderpur, Pargana Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, which is recorded as road and chak road in the revenue record, has been illegally encroached by the petitioner. The aforesaid report was registered as Case No. 204 under Section 122- B read with 115-C of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Tehsildar (Judicial) Shahganj decided the aforesaid case by an order dated 10.3.2014 directing for eviction of the petitioner and imposed damages of Rs. 2280/-.
Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed a Revision No. 148 of 2014 (Narayan Das vs. State of U.P.) before the Collector, Jaunpur on 12.9.2014. The said revision is pending from the last five years. In the meantime, the complainant Deepak Upadhyay filed writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15638 of 2019 (Deepak Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and others) for a direction to the authorities to implement the order dated 10.3.2014. In that writ petition interim order dated 30.5.2019 was passed requiring the respondent no. 3 to explain as to why the order dated 10.3.2014 has not been implemented on the spot even though its operation has not been stayed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's revision pending before the Collector, Jaunpur is not being decided and, on the other hand, coercive action is being taken by the respondents against the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that his revision pending before the Collector, Jaunpur may be directed to be decided within a time bound period and till date no coercive action shall be taken.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gram Sabha has no objection to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for time bound disposal of revision and no coercive action for a period of two weeks.
We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the submission made by learned Standing Counsel, we dispose off this writ petition directing the District Magistrate, Jaunpur (respondent no. 2) to decide the Revision No. 148 of 2014 (Narayan Das vs. State of U.P.) in accordance with law, within two weeks from today. For a period of two weeks or till the aforesaid revision is decided, whichever earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.6.2019 Puspendra