Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sanding Counsel and perused the record.
This petition has been filed with a prayer that for issuance of interim mandamus directing the respondents to remove illegal and unauthorized encroachments made by the respondents No. 7 to 11 from gram sabha land.
Our attention has been drawn to an earlier decision of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 3211 of 2012 Ravi Shanker Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and others, dated 19.1.2012, wherein reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (1) ADJ, 470, wherein it has been held that where land is being encroached upon or not, is a matter for investigation, by the competent authority, which may require appropriate proceedings for demarcation, or location of boundary of the disputed area. To investigate and find out any such encroachment, a procedure has been provided for under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Once law provides for a particular procedure and which is a complete code in itself, then taking recourse to PIL for the same, may not be desirable. Such investigation has to proceed by making an enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law by the appropriate revenue authority etc. who under statute are empowered to investigate such matters and to adjudicate on the same.
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Adnan Ahmad Vs. Sanaullah and others, reported in 2010(1) ADJ 448, wherein it has been held that if it is found that any one has some claim, the question as to whether the property had vested in the Gaon Sabha and whether a person is in unauthorized occupation, or not, can be squarely determined in proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P Z.A. & L.R. Act. There is no right of representation, which is sought to be made by any one.
It would not be out of place to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and others reported in 2001(6)SCC 496 has held that the material resources of the community like forest, tanks, ponds, hillocks and mountains etc are nature's bounty. They maintain the delicate ecological balance and their need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the Government including the Revenue Authorities are duty-bound to clean and develop them so that ecological disaster may be prevented and a better environment provided to people at large, hence no part of it can be allotted to any one as an Abadi site for the purpose of building houses etc. However, as learned Standing Counsel points out that in the present case, proceedings are going on in respect of the disputes raised by the petitioner before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Bansi, district Siddharth Nagar, and proceedings under section 115 (c) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are underway, there is no necessity for this Court to issue any direction except that as far as possible, the said proceedings be concluded within a period of six months.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.5.2012 HSM