Court No.37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38511 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nijendra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karuna Srivastava,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the orders dated 11.12.2017 and 24.6.2016 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Baraut, District Baghpat in Case No.T- 20121184539 under section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also against the order dated 27.9.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, District Baghpat in Revision No.3 of 2018.
The petitioners were served with a notice in Form-49Ka on 27.12.2012 whereupon they filed their objections and stated that they had been in possession over the plot in question namely plot no.714 area 35 sq. meters since before 1978 and, therefore, the land be settled on the petitioners under section 122-B (4F) of the Act. During the pendency of the case, the Halka Lekhpal on 29.1.2016 also gave his statement that the petitioners had constructed their house from before his appointment as Lekhpal in the village. However, the case was taken up in the absence of the petitioners and the Tehsildar on 24.6.2016 passed an ex-parte order dispossessing the petitioners from the disputed plot and also imposed penalty. Against the ex-parte order, the petitioners filed filed a Restoration Application. However, when the same was dismissed on 11.12.2017, the petitioners filed a Revision which again was dismissed on 27.9.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if the notice on Form-49Ka is seen, it would be evident that it was not clear as to since when the petitioners were in possession over the plot in question. The notice only states that the petitioners were in possession over the plot in question from before 1420 Fasli. He, therefore, submits that the notice was absolutely vague and, therefore, the proceedings which were initiated on the basis of a vague notice deserved to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that if the Khasras as were produced before the Court were perused, it would be evident that the instrumentalities of the respondents never conducted any inspection and the Khasras in fact did not indicate the presence of the petitioners regarding which the notice was there. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that everything was done in a haphazard manner and without any application of mind.
The respondent-Tehsildar filed an affidavit in which certain Khasras were filed which were of the years from before 1420 Fasli and they definitely did not show that the petitioners were in possession. However, in support of the affidavit of the Tehsildar, the learned Standing Counsel had submitted that the Khasras were weeded out and, therefore, it was not possible to bring in the correct picture.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha, this Court is of the view that on the basis of a vague notice no proceeding could have been initiated and, therefore, the orders dated 11.12.2017 and 24.6.2016 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Baraut, District Baghpat in Case No.T- 20121184539 and the order dated 27.9.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, District Baghpat in Revision No.3 of 2018 are quashed. However, in the light of the statement made by the Halka Lekhpal, the petitioners, on the date when the notice was issued, definitely were entitled for the regularisation of their possession and, therefore, the State Authorities shall take steps to regularise the possession of the petitioners under the relevant provisions of the Act and also of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 30.05.2019 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)