Allahabad High Court
Wahid And 6 Others vs State Of U P And 5 Others on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21827 of 2019
Petitioner :- Wahid And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri B. Dayal for the Meerut Development Authority and Shri Mahesh Narain Singh for the respondent no. 5, the Gaon Sabha.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and seeks quashing of the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Meerut.
The dispute in the writ petition pertain to plot no. 190 area 0.391 hectares situated in Village Ghosipur, Tehsil and District Meerut.
It appears that on the initiation of proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act for eviction of the petitioner, the Tehsildar vide order dated 18.04.2013, discharged the notice issued to the petitioner in Form 49-A, in view of a decision of the Civil Court dated 07.02.2009 decreeing Suit No. 550 of 1993, filed by the petitioners.
Aggrieved by the order dropping the proceedings, the State of U.P. preferred a revision. This revision has been allowed vide order dated 12.06.2019. The order passed by the Tehsildar, dated 18.04.2013, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties. It is this order of remand, which is impugned in the writ petition.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the land in dispute is recorded as abadi in the revenue record. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 122-B/Rule 115-C were not maintainable. The impugned order has wrongly been passed on the premise that the land is recorded as Khalihan, which is factually incorrect.
It is also contended that proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not maintainable also in view of the fact that a civil suit filed by the petitioners regarding the same land had already been decreed in their favour.
Counsel appearing for the respondents have supported that the order impugned to submit that it is an order of remand and, therefore, this Court should not interfere.
It has also been stated that a categorical finding has been returned in the impugned order of remand that the concerned Gaon Sabha or the State of U.P. were not parties in the civil suit and, therefore, the decree is not binding upon them.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Primarily, the thrust of the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners is based upon the judgment and decree in their favour passed in Civil Suit No. 550 of 1993 dated 17.02.2009. A copy of the said judgment is available on record and I have perused the same.
Two importance aspects emerge from a perusal of the Court. First the suit was one for permanent injunction and the same appears to have been decreed on the ground that the plot in question was ordered to be recorded as the abadi of the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest, under orders passed by the consolidation authorities. Secondly, the judgment passed by the Civil Court in its operative portion restrains the defendants in the suit from evicting the plaintiff from plot no. 190, except in accordance with law.
The consolidation authorities are not competent to direct recording the name of a person over abadi land. To this extent, prima facie, the orders of the consolidation courts relied upon, while decreeing the suit, appear to be without jurisdiction.
Besides, the civil suit only restrained the defendants from evicting the plaintiff, except in accordance with law. Proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act are legal proceedings for eviction of an unauthorized occupant. Therefore, these proceedings are therefore clearly maintainable, also in view of the judgment of the Civil Court, which is the basis of the petitioners' claim in this writ petition.
Even otherwise, the order impugned is an order of remand in pursuance whereof, the petitioners still have every opportunity of canvassing their claim both on facts and on law. Therefore, this Court does not consider it expedient to interfere because the petitioner cannot be said to be unduly aggrieved by such order of remand.
In view of the foregoing, this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned order of remand.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 01.08.2019
Mayank
