Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33707 of 2018 Petitioner :- Subash Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Kumar Bhartiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 6.8.2018 and the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by respondents no. 2 and 3. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner from the land in question.
By the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 in proceedings undertaken under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the eviction order of the petitioner was passed regarding Arazi no. 436Sa measuring 0.013 Hectare which is recorded as Bhita land. The appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.8.2018.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the possession of the petitioner is not on Bhita land. It was further submitted that the petitioner had purchased certain land from one Vijay Bahadur Singh and regarding the property purchased from Vijay Bahadur Singh in the same arazi number Civil Suit No. 386 of 2017 is pending wherein Amin report has been submitted which indicates that the possession of the petitioner is not on Bhita land. Submission therefore, is that the petitioner is not in possession over Bhita land and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned orders.
I have heard the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record, I find that in the revenue report the area which is in possession of the petitioner on Arazi No. 436Sa area 0.013 Hectare is on Bhita land. A perusal of the appellate order clearly indicates that apart from the fact that the aforesaid plot is recorded as Bhita land in the revenue record, the demarcation was also done jointly and it was found that the petitioner is in possession over Bhita land.
In such finding of fact which is recorded on the basis of the revenue record as well as on demarcation report I do not find any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned herein.
It may also be noticed that admittedly a dispute between the private parties for which a civil suit is pending is in respect of different piece of land allegedly on the same plot number and could not have any affect over the same.
This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.10.2018 p.s.