Allahabad High Court
Rajpal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3505 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rajpal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaysingh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur,Krishna Kant Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4, Gram Sabha.
Present petition has been filed with following prayer:-
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar, Talbehat, District- Lalitpur in Case No. 1137 of 2017 (Computer Case No. T2017064540021137), Gaon Sabha versus Lakshman Singh, under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Collector, District- Lalitpur in Case/ Appeal No. 00693 of 2020 (Computer Case No. D202006450000693), Rajpal Versus Gaon Sabha.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to disposes the petitioner from his dwelling house situated at the village- Gadyana, Pargana- Banpur, Tehsil- Talbehat, District- Lalitpur and further be pleased not to take any coercive action against the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order of this Court of the date passed in Writ- C No. 3453 of 2021 (Lakshman Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others). The said order is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4, Gram Sabha.
Present petition has been filed with following prayer:-
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar, Talbehat, District- Lalitpur in Case No. 1140 of 2017 (Computer Case No. T2017064540021140), Gaon Sabha versus Lakshman Singh, under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Collector, District- Lalitpur in Case/ Appeal No. 00690 of 2020 (Computer Case No. D202006450000690), Lakshman Singh Versus Gaon Sabha.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to disposes the petitioner from his dwCounselelling house situated at the village- Gadyana, Pargana- Banpur, Tehsil- Talbehat, District- Lalitpur and further be pleased not to take any coercive action against the petitioner."
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without conducting any detailed inquiry with regard to the encroachment on the disputed land and without considering proper facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authority passed the order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code and the appeal was also illegally dismissed. It is further submitted that the restoration application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed without applying mind. He further submits that the petitioner along with several other persons are in possession over the property in question since long and at least for about 25 years but the proceedings were initiated and the Lekhpal has incorrectly stated that the property in dispute was illegally occupied by the petitioner two years back.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits although the petitioner has appeared in the proceedings under Section 67 and filed objections, inspite of time having been granted petitioner could not produce any evidence on record about the occupation that when they came in possession of the land in question.
I have perused the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of the record, I find that only a very small portion of land measuring area 0.035 hectare is recorded as abadi of plot no. 1078/3 and rest of the area is recorded as patthar. Occupation of the petitioner was found to be two years old. He has appeared and had taken part in the proceedings but after filing objections he did not came forward to produce any evidence in his favour. In the appeal also I find no substantial ground for substantiating the rights of the petitioner has been taken.
In such view of the matter, in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the authority concerned that the petitioner inspite of the time having been granted could not produce any evidence with regard to his old occupation of the land in question, I do not find any good ground for entertaining the present petition in exercise of my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed with the observations as made above."
In such view of the matter, present petition also stands dismissed for the discussions made in the above quoted judgment.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021
Aditya
