Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3150 of 2019 Petitioner :- Raja Ram And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abdul Khalik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for second and third respondent and Sri Manu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 30 October 2017 passed in revision by the second respondent, District Collector, Etah District Etah arising from the order dated 17 January 2009 passed by the court of Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Gaon Sabha vs. Suresh Chandra and others). Petitioner in the said proceedings instituted by the Gaon Sabha has been directed to be evicted from gata no. 217 ad-measuring 0-008 hectare on returning a finding that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of public land.
It is noted in the impugned order that no evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner neither the receipt of the pradhan as alleged by him was filed. On the contrary the Halka Lekhpal appeared before the court and deposed that the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha and filed the naksha nazri and the extracts of the revenue record (khasra and khatauni) consequently, the impugned order came to be passed. Aggrieved by the order, petitioner preferred revision after a lapse of 8 years. The second respondent dismissed the revision on the ground of delay.
The time limit provided under the Code is 30 days. It is noted in the impugned order that there is no explanation for the delay nor any delay condonation application was filed. It is averred in two paragraphs of the revision petition that the petitioner was not informed of the order by the person doing parivi in the matter.
This fact is not borne out from the record as it is noted in the order of the Tehsildar that the petitioner and others had put in appearance and filed their reply to the notice in proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act.
In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, accordingly, it is dismissed.
Dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from taking remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law seeking declaration of this right and title insofar it relates to the disputed property.
No cost.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 S.Prakash