Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14629 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Krit And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The instant writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saidpur, District Ghazipur on an application filed by the petitioners and consequent to an order passed by the writ Court earlier.
The petitioners claimed to be allottees of the Gaon Sabha on the basis of an allotment made in their favour on 25.02.1987. The petitioners alleging that they had not been given possession over the land allotted to them have the application aforesaid seeks a demarcation and the delivery of possession.
The representation / application has been disposed of holding that though an allotment was made. There is no land available on the spot.
The allotment had been made of areas of old plot no.154, which post consolidation is new plot no.112 Ka other persons,who had been allotted are of other plots are in possession and they have also acquired bhumidhari rights and area 0.126 hectares is occupied by the primary school by an area 0.152 hectares is a canal and therefore, no land being plot allotted is acquired or available and therefore, no possession can be given to the petitioners.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is in the teeth of earlier directions issued by the writ Court.
It is also submitted that a contempt application in this regard is pending consideration.
Upon consideration of the submissions made and upon a perusal of the record, I do not find it a fit case for interference.
The proceedings on the application of the petitioners and consequent to the directions on the writ Court were proceedings for demarcation and possession.
The relief has been refused on the ground that no land is available on the spot for being demarcated and for possession being given to the petitioners.
Although, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that there is land available on the spot. For the same reason, in my considered opinion is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be determined in writ petition.
Since, it is the case of the petitioners that they have not been given possession over the land allotted to them. The remedy under the circumstances is by means of a suit for possession, which remedy, the petitioners may avail, in case, so advised.
Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 RKM