Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19749 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- Additional Collector And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brij Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Shri Brij Kumar Yadav, Advocate appearing for the second respondent.
Notice need not be issued to the private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 02.05.2018 passed by Additional Collector (Judicial), Farrukhabad under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by which the application filed by petitioner has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to command the respondents not to interfere over the bhumidhari land of petitioner pertaining to Arazi no.211/1.63 (121/0.530) and Arazi no.44- A/1.16(241/0.571) situated in Village Nagaria Gahalwar, Pargana Bhojpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Farrukhabad till the disposal of Case no.5777 of 2016 (Rajendra Singh vs. Santram and others).
Perusal of record goes to show that earlier the writ petition no.54110/2017 has been preferred by petitioner and this Court vide order dated 17.11.2017 has disposed of the said petition with the direction to the Authority concerned to finalize the proceeding under Section 198(4) of UPZA&LR Act. It is claimed that thereafter the respondents have tried to dispossess petitioner from his holding and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred application dated 06.02.2018, upon which the order impugned has been passed on the ground that parties have not produced any evidence for claim of their rights over the property in dispute and as such the order of status quo cannot be passed in the matter.
After perusing the record in question and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order impugned and as such no interference is required in the matter.
Once the Court has declined to interfere in the order impugned, then in such a situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that direction may be issued to the Authority concerned to decide the proceeding under Section 198(4) of UPZA&LR Act at the earliest. It has also been informed to the Court that petitioner is in possession over the said property and as such, they may not be dispossessed except due process of law.
Learned Standing Counsel has not opposed the said prayer.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Additional Collector (Judicial), Farrukhabad to decide the proceeding under Section 198(4) of UPZA&LR Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost but certainly after according opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter. Meanwhile, it is expected that status quo as of today qua the property in dispute shall be maintained by the parties.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 A. Pandey