JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. A report was submitted by the Lekhpal Gaon Sabha Bhagwantpura, Pargana and District Jhansi alleging that the petitioner had encroached over plot No. 698. Notices were issued to the petitioner and she filed her objection to discharge the notices alleging therein that the construction had been made over the land in dispute since before 1970 and she had no other house to live in. She claimed that she is entitled to the benefit of Section 123 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The Assistant Collector/Tahsildar Jhansi vide order dated 18.10.1988 rejected the objection of the petitioner. On revision being filed respondent No. 1, Collector, Jhansi dismissed the revision vide order dated 9th February, 1989.
3. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the Lekhpal on being examined too had admitted the fact in his statement that the petitioner had made the house in question much before 1970. therefore, she was entitled to the benefit of provisions as contemplated under Section 123 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and the notice issued to the petitioner was liable to be discharged. It is further submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner was illegal and time of tresspass was not given. It is also averred in the writ petition that this point was canvassed before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but they have not considered this aspect of the matter and at any rate, respondent Nos. land 2 had no jurisdiction to go into the question of allotment and the validity thereof and not looking into correct facts about the possession of the petitioner on the land in dispute and the construction made thereon was of much before 1970.
4. By order dated 18.10.1988 the Assistant Collector has held that the land in dispute was the property of the Gaon Sabha and the petitioner had illegally encroached upon it. The Assistant Collector had imposed Rs. 3500/- as penalty and also ordered for eviction of the petitioner. The Revisional Court in its judgment dated 9th February, 1989 has held that in Rule 115-M of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act approval of Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not required and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 122-C-(3)(2) of the Act. It further held that merely because 40 times compensation has been deposited by the Pattedar will not vest him any right of allotment or title over the land in dispute.
5. A perusal of 115-M of the Rules framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for allotment of the land shows that 40 times compensation can be levied. It does not provide that the approval of the S.D.M. was required for allotment of the land after payment of 40 times rent/ compensation. Hence, even if the petitioner has deposited the rent/compensation 40 times he would not have title over the land and can not get the benefit of Section 122-C(3)(2) of the Act until and unless he complied with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Rules 115-M. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had fulfilled all the conditions of the allotment even before the Courts below no evidence was adduced by the counsel for the petitioner. The findings given in the revision are interlocutory in nature and can be decided in regular suit.
6. For the reasons stated above, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.