Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15118 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vinod And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharam Deo Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel. Shri R.C. Upadhyay appears for Land Management Committee.
The petitioners are before this Court for a direction to the Tehsildar to demarcate the land of the petitioners under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and for a further direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question.
It is claimed that the petitioners are landless agriculture labourers belonging to backward class. The Land Management Committee, Gram Sabha, Suhawal passed resolution on 26.1.1976 for allotment of land in favour of Shiv Nath, the father of the petitioners in respect of some portion of land Plot No.441/19 area 0.405 acres along with 31 others. On the basis of extract of khatauni, which is appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, it is claimed that the aforesaid land in question has been recorded in favour of petitioners' father as bhumidhari. Meanwhile consolidation proceeding in the area has been initiated and the plot has been carved out in favour of late Shiv Nath, the father of the petitioners. It is alleged that on the basis of report prepared by Asstt. Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh the revenue authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute as according to the report of Asstt. Consolidation Officer the land is recorded in revenue record under Section 132 of UPZA & LR Act and no settlement can be ensured in favour of landless as land is recorded as public utility land. It is requested that without any actual demarcation of the land in question the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land in question.
On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel very fairly states that UP Revenue Code, 2006 as well as UP Revenue Code Rules, 2016 are self-contained Act and Rules and there is exhaustive procedure provided under Rule 22, whereby the petitioners can move requisite application for demarcation of the land in question. At no point of time any such application has been moved and on this score itself the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that liberty may be accorded to the petitioners to move fresh application strictly in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case any such application is moved within two weeks from today before the SDM concerned, this Court hope and trust that the same would be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law within further four months time. It is expected that for a period of four months the parties shall maintain status quo as on today over the property in dispute.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 SP/