Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19556 of 2019 Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sagar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Shailendra Yadav
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and 6 and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha.
The writ petition arises out of a proceedings under Section 122- B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act which were drawn against the father of the petitioners, vide order dated 23.07.2007. He was ordered to be evicted from the land in unauthorized occupation, which land belonging to the Gaon Sabha.
Against this order, a restoration application was filed by the petitioners, the sons of the person against whom, the proceedings under Section 122-B have been drawn, namely, Pabbar.
The restoration application was dismissed holding that there was no materiel on record to indicate that the father of the applicants have died prior to the passing of the order of eviction.
It appears that thereafter a review application was filed, this review application has also been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable.
The petitioners thereafter, preferred a revision which has also been dismissed, holding that the Tehsildar did not have any power of review.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence has been filed showing that his father died prior to the passing of the order of eviction, which has not been considered.
The attention of the Court has been drawn to the letter certificate issued by the Pradhan, on 10.04.2017. The certificate was issued by the Pradhan on the basis of personal knowledge and not on the basis of any record.
It is surprising that the Pradhan aware of the specific death of Pabbar who had died almost a decade earlier.
In any case this certificate does not appear to have been filed before the Collector, who, in his order dated 30.01.2019, has categorically observed that no evidence was filed by the petitioners to establish the alleged date of death of their father.
The first contention is therefore repelled.
The second contention of counsel for the petitioners is that consequently a demarcation was made and that in this demarcation, the petitioners were not found to be in unauthorized occupation of any property belonging to the Gaon Sabha.
In this regard, I have carefully perused the demarcation report which does not mention that the petitioners are not in unauthorized occupation of the Gaon Sabha property. This report is only to the effect that in accordance with a demarcation order boundary marks have been erected.
The petitioners cannot drive any benefit from this report.
Besides, the aforenoted demarcation was only for the purposes of demarcation of the chak road. This demarcation prima facie cannot be held to be one, to determine the extent of the petitioners unauthorized occupation of the chak road.
For the same reason, the report or the spot map appended thereto, cannot be read in the manner it sought to be read by the petitioners in his favour.
No other point has been pressed.
Since, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner had been repelled above, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Radhika