Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15165 of 2018 Petitioner :- Tara Chand And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ateeq Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
Notice need not be issued to the private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed.
Petitioners before this Court are assailing the validity of order dated 08.06.2017 passed by Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in Revision no.10 of 2016-17 (Tara Chand and others vs. Urmila @ Vimla and others) under Section 219 L.R. Act; order dated 23.11.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Appeal no.17 of 2011012 (Tara Chand and others vs. Smt. Urmila @ Vimla and others); and order dated 19.10.2010 passed by Tehsildar (Judicial), Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (Smt. Urmila @ Vimla and others vs. Jagmal) in Case no.159/350 under Section 34 L.R. Act.
At the very outset, Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that in pith and substance the petitioners are challenging the proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, which is summary in nature and against the same there is full-fledged mechanism provided under Code of Civil Procedure for filing of suit for crystallization of rights over the land in question and as such, this Court should not at all interfere in the matter.
Once such an objection has been made, this Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds substance in the contention raised by the learned Standing Standing counsel as proceeding under Section 34 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act 1950, which is summary in nature, does not at all confirm or extinguish any right or title of anybody over the property in question and in case petitioners are aggrieved with the said proceeding, they can always approach to the appropriate forum by way of filing civil suit for redressal of their grievance as has been provided under Code of Civil Procedure, as such, no interference is required in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 A. Pandey