Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3293 of 2018 Petitioner :- Roop Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 21 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Yadav,Ajai Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-Gaon Sabha.
The present petition has been filed by a person who has been impleded as opposite party in an eviction suit filed by the Gram Sabha. The said suit was initially dismissed by the trial court and was decreed vide order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner.
A direction was given therein to evict all unauthorized occupants of public utility land of 'Talaab' namely the public utility land and restore the position of the same as public pond.
The said order was challenged in second appeal no.11 of 2001-02 by one Paras Nath namely respondent no.3 herein whose eviction was also ordered.
The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue. The order passed by the Board of Revenue in Second appeal no.11 of 2001-02 (Parasnath Vs. Gaon Sabha & others) dated 15.03.2005 is under challenge in a writ petition no.54434 of 2005 which is pending consideration. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the petitioner who was also sought to be evicted by order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner.
It appears that recall application was moved by the petitioner herein before the Board of Revenue for recall of the order dated 15.03.2005 passed in second appeal filed by respondent no.5. The said application was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2017 with the assertion that the petitioner has not been able to establish as to how he was aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2005 passed in Second Appeal. Even otherwise, he was impleaded as respondent in second appeal no.11 of 2001-02 filed by a person who was sought to be evicted from the Gram Sabha land.
The order dated 13.09.2007 was sought to be recalled by another application moved on 10.10.2017 which was dismissed on 28.11.2017.
In view of the above noted facts, it is more than apparent that the petitioner is only a busy body who seeks to challenge the order passed by the Board of Revenue by means of the present petition stating therein that he is aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue in restoring the possession of unauthorized occupant is respondent no.5 and the public utility land of 'Talaab' in any case is to be restored in view of the judgement of Apex Court in "Hinch Lal Tiwari".
This apart, the present petition is not a Public Interest Litigation and has arisen out of a proceeding under Section 202/209 of the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act initiated by the Gram Sabha. The petitioner might have been impleaded as an opposite party in the Second Appeal arising out of eviction suit but he can not claim any right to contest the said appeal on behalf of Gram Sabha seeking eviction of some other unauthorized occupant. Even otherwise, the Gram Sabha has already filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal which is pending consideration. The recall applications moved by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue were misconceived applications and have rightly been rejected.
For all the above noted reasons, the writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Himanshu