Allahabad High Court
Ram Niwas And Others vs Addl. D.M. (F & R) And Others on 19 September, 2012
Bench: Sanjay Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48077 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ram Niwas And Others
Respondent :- Addl. D.M. (F & R) And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Pathak,Rakesh Pathak
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and Sri M. N. Singh for the Respondent No.4, Gaon Sabha.
Since all the respondents are represented this writ petition is being decided today itself.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.09.2012 passed in Revision No.4 of 2012 (Ram Niwas & others Vs. Gaon Sabha & others) whereby on the interim application made by the petitioners the Revisional Court refused to grant an interim order against eviction of the petitioners and has admitted revision although earlier the Revisional Court has stayed the recovery on 29.08.2012.
According to learned counsel, the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated against the petitioners but the petitioners were not served any notice and an ex-parte order only on the basis of report of Lekhpal was passed on 23.08.2012. When the petitioners learnt about the same they filed Revision No.4 of 2012 before the Respondent No.1 but the interim application of the petitioners has been refused and their eviction has not been stayed. Learned counsel states that in case the petitioners are evicted from the land in question and their constructions are demolished the revision in effect will become infructuous and, therefore, while admitting the revision the Revisional Court ought to have granted stay against the eviction and removal of construction of the petitioners.
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Tehsildar in the order dated 23.08.2012 that the petitioners have encroached illegally over talab (water body) belonging to the gaon sabha and, therefore, they are required to be evicted. The Revisional Court has refused the interim prayer against the eviction of the petitioners. The view of the Revisional Court is perfectly in accordance with law and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi & others', reported in AIR 2001 SC 3215, wherein illegal and unauthorized encroachments over water bodies are required to be removed forthwith. As such the Revisional Court has passed an interim order only with respect to realization of compensation awarded against the petitioners but not against eviction from the land of public utility.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court. The writ petition has no merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.9.2012
pawan
