Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3306 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramkesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The order impugned in the present petition is an order passed by the Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on the report submitted by the Consolidation Officer dated 25.11.2017.
The said report records that as per the old revenue records i.e. the Khatauni of 1373-75 Fasli, total 36 Gatas of approximately 30.855 acres were recorded as public utility land in different categories such as land of Pond, Banjar, Khalihan (pasture land), Khad ke gadde, Usar and Bheeta.
Over the period of years, the said land was reduced to two plots of approximately 0.114 acres.
Considering the said report in the light of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Hinchlal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi reported in 2002 RD 838 (SC) wherein a direction has been given to restore the public utility land, the Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Sadar) to ensure that all public utility lands in the village are restored to their original position. Plot No.328 area 1.660 acres has been found to be recorded as Pokharan (pond) in the revenue records.
The petitioner in the present petition is aggrieved by the findings with regard to the aforesaid Plot No.328 in the order impugned.
The contention of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the Plot No.830 which was allegedly recorded in his name.
A perusal of the order impugned shows that only direction given therein is to ensure that the public utility lands of the village are restored to their original position. The said fact recorded in the order impugned would not mean that the petitioner would be evicted without getting an opportunity.
No notice, admittedly, as on date has been given to the petitioner nor any proceeding had been initiated for his eviction as on date.
In view thereof, this Court does not find any justification to interfere.
In case of any notice issued to the petitioner or any proceeding for his eviction from Plot No.328 area 1.660 acres, it would be open for him to plead his claim before the Competent Authority.
It goes without saying that even eviction of unauthorized occupant from the public utility land would also require a notice and opportunity of hearing.
It further needs to be clarified that the Court has neither examined the claim of the petitioner being in possession of the disputed plot nor expressed any opinion on his claim.
Subject to the above observations, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Himanshu