Allahabad High Court
Selak And Others vs Collector And Others on 12 September, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 51803 of 2011
Petitioner :- Selak And Others
Respondent :- Collector And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Satendra Kumar Mishra,S.C. Varma
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record.
After the matter was heard at length, Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents themselves having indicated in their reports that the Abadi of the petitioners was more than 40 to 50 years old it cannot be said that the petitioners are encroaching over Gaon Sabha land.
What appears from the pleadings and according to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is that the land, over which encroachment is alleged, was earlier the holding of the petitioners, which during the consolidation operations came to be altered by way of Chak allotment and the land in question came to be reserved for a public utility purpose, namely, housing the Panchayat Ghar. Accordingly, once the petitioners had been allotted land else where, and if the entries were made as per the settlement during the consolidation operations, then mere existence of old constructions would become immaterial. It is trite law that the consolidation operations bring about a settlement and once the statement of principles have been confirmed under the consolidation scheme, then no right can be claimed by either of the parties contrary to the same unless challenged by any one.
In the instant case, the allotment in favour of Gram Panchayat Ghar as a reserved place does not appear to have been challenged by the petitioners. In such a situation, the said reservation in favour of the Gram Panchayat Ghar stands confirmed. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim any title or right over that area which has been reserved even if it contains some part of the erstwhile building or constructions which the petitioners alleged to have raised 40 to 50 years back. The reason for the same is that the petitioners have been allocated land else where as against their original holdings during consolidation operations.
The issue relating to holding over the land arises only after consolidation operations and not prior to that. In such a situation, the calculation with regard to damages as against the petitioners does not appear to have been done after taking that factor into account. A sum of Rs. 44,500/- appears to have been imposed on the petitioners @ Rs. 100/- per square meter. This calculation has not been made as per the Rules which is required to be computed on the basis of the revenue of the land in dispute.
Nonetheless, in the instant case, as noted above, the petitioners were not in unauthorized occupation throughout as alleged in the notice and their occupation, if any, becomes unauthorized only after the consolidation operations. In view of this, the Court is of the opinion that justice would be met in case the said amount of penalty is proportionally reduced keeping in view the nature of the litigation.
Accordingly, while upholding the order of eviction, this Court finds it necessary to reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 1,500/- only.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of subject to the modification of the impugned order as hereinabove.
Order Date :- 12.9.2011
Shiraz
