Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40134 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Pal Respondent :- Collector District Saharanpur And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shravana Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav connect with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40136 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- Collector District Saharanpur And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shravana Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40140 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Respondent :- Collector District Saharanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shravana Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40142 of 2019 Petitioner :- Inder Sain Respondent :- Collector District Saharanpur And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shravana Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
All these four writ petitions involve an identical dispute and therefore with the consent of the parties they have been heard and are being decided together.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Yadav for the Gaon Sabha, respondent no.3 as also learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, wherein the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from different areas of plot nos.219 and 257 recorded as a pond.
The order of eviction passed by the Tehsildar has been affirmed upon dismissal of the appeals filed by the petitioners.
It has been contended before this Court that the orders passed by the Tehsildar were exparte and had been passed without any notice or information to the petitioners or their fathers, who had filed the appeal, which appeal has been dismissed.
The other contention raised is that the petitioner has absolutely no concern with plot nos. 219 and 257 from which, they have been ordered to be evicted.
In case, petitioners are not in possession over the disputed land, they cannot be dispossessed therefrom.
The orders of eviction therefore, passed against the petitioners are orders whereby they have no reason to be aggrieved.
Under the circumstances and on the submissions made, this writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed and the order of eviction, which does not prejudice the petitioners in any manner, as observed above, hereby affirmed.
Even otherwise, the order for eviction has been passed regarding land recorded as pond, over which no rights can accrue in favour of any person.
In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 RKM