Allahabad High Court
Smt Meera Devi And 17 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9783 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt Meera Devi And 17 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Arun Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Notice on behalf of fourth respondent has been received by Sri Arun Kumar Pandey.
The case of the writ petitioners who are 18 in number as portrayed in the writ petition is that the writ petitioners are the landless and helpless persons who are the resident of Gram Sabha Palki Amon Achatmali Dhampur Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor. In para 6 of the writ petition it has been averred that the writ petitioners approached the concerned land management committee for allotment of some piece of land for agricultural purpose in order to sustain themselves and the land management committee took into consideration the claim of the writ petitioners and came to the conclusion that some financial assistance was to be provided to the writ petitioners. Paragraphs No. 8 to 25 of the writ petition discloses the extent and the area of the land allotted to the writ petitioners. It is further averred in para 27 then after allotment of the subject land records were produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer Dhampur, District Bijnor by the fourth respondent and finally by a resolution of the land management committee approval of the allotment of land made to the writ petitioners was accorded. In para 28 reference of the Khataunies has been made and they have been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In para 29 of the writ petition further averment has been made that the writ petitioners are cultivating the land in question. In para 30 of the writ petition it is further sought to be averred that on the basis of the ex parte report Tehsildar Dhampur, District Bijnor the entries recorded in the name of the writ petitioners have been removed however, in para 31 of the writ petition a further averment has made that the concerned Gram Sabha did not undertake any proceedings for eviction of the writ petitioners under the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The writ petitioners further assert that they are in actual physical possession of the land in question and they are cultivating the land and in view of the provisions contained under Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 they are entitled to the benefits under this section and in this regard they have also represented their claim before the third respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor reference whereof has been made in paragraph No. 43 of the writ petition and appended as Annexure 4 commencing from page 80 and concluding at page 87 of the paper book.
Prayer in the present petition is for a mandamus directing the respondent to proceed in accordance with law as per the provisions of Section 76(1) (Gh) (Gh) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha further submits that so far as the entitlement and the continuance of the writ petitioners in the land in question which the writ petitioners claim to have been allotted to them and they are cultivating the same is a factual issue and so far as the issue with regard to the fact as to whether the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits under Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is to be given a final call by the competent authority under the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Thus, according to the learned Standing Counsel and the counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha it is for the writ petitioners to approach the concerned authority and in case he has already approached then they should peruse the same.
In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the petitioners has already approached the concerned authority under the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code and in order to buttress his submission he has relied upon a judgment which is annexed as Annexure 3 at page 77 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19865 of 2008 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided on 02.05.2008. A pointed query has been made to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether they intend to file any response to the writ petition, however, a specific statement has been made that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit, however the writ petitioners may press their claim under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, without seeking any response from the respondents, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the concerned authority under the U.P. Revenue Code along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition for redressal of their grievances which the writ petitioners claim to be entitled in relation to Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in case the writ petitioners set forth their claim and press the same then the competent authority under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall address the claim of the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with law being without influenced or obsessed by any of the observations made hereinabove particularly in view of the fact that the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response on the basis of the ex parte averments and the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is further clarified that the entitlement, claim of the writ petitioners has not been adjudicated by this Court. The said exercise should be undertaken within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
Rajesh
