HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59572 of 2015 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Misra,Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner today. Let the same be taken on record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed upon a revision filed by the Gaon Sabha against discharge of the notices issued by the Assistant Collector (Ist Class) under Section 122-B (4-A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), upon the report of the Lekhpal.
The proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objection stating therein that the plot in question, which is a Holi land where festival of holi is celebrated by the villagers, is only to the extent of area 0.009 hectare and as per the entry made in the revenue record, an area of the said land being 0.160 hectare is only on the basis of an exparte order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 25.02.1991 and for recalling the same, the petitioner filed a restoration application, which has been allowed on 27.11.2010. Therefore, the report of the Lekhpal upon which the proceedings were initiated, stating therein that an area of the holi land which is 0.160 hectare is yet to be established and therefore, the Assistant Collector on this ground had rightly discharged the notices vide an order dated 24.04.2015 but the revision has been allowed only on the ground that in the revenue record, the area of said land has been mentioned as 0.160 hectare. It did not consider the claim of the petitioner that such entry was made pursuant to an order of Consolidation Officer dated 25.02.1991, which order has already been recalled by an order dated 27.11.2010.
The second objection is with regard to the factum that the Revisional Authority has itself directed the eviction of the petitioner, which is without jurisdiction, as the Competent Authority is the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector exercising powers under Section 122-B of the Act.
According to Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, if the Revisional Authority was of the opinion that the notice has illegally been discharged, it ought to have remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector instead it has decided the question of eviction itself which is contrary to law.
Learned counsel for the respondent -Gaon Sabha submits that the petitioner has remedy of filing the suit under Section 122-B (4-D) of the Act.
Matter requires consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel represents the respondents no. 1 to 3. Sri Manu Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha.
The respondents may file counter affidavit within one month. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List this case after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the plot no. 585 pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexurre-17 to the writ petition) and till the next date of listing, the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to the property in question.
Order Date :- 26.10.2015 Lbm/-