Shakir Hasan v. Mohar Singh — 1986 DIGILAW 409 (ALL)

JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1-10-84 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut, in revision No. 76 of 1973-74 Sabbir Hasan and others v. Mohar Singh and others, 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mohar Singh and others were allotted land from plot No. 98 of village Halwana vide resolution dated 26-2-78 that the revisionists have nothing to do with plot No. 98 which was allotted to Mohar Singh and others; that the revisionists are in possession of part of plot No. 97 adjacent to the boundary of village Rajput Nagal; that the Supervisor Kanoongo in collusion with Mohar Singh and others did not demarcated the boundary line between the plot Nos. 97 and 98; that the learned S.D.O. without getting the demarcation done and too without setting the dispute between the boundaries of plot Nos. 97 and 98 passed the impugned order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists neither ever occupied the plot No. 98 nor they re-occupied plot No. 98 ; hence the provision of Section 198-A (3) of the Z.A. & L.R. Act are not attracted; that Mohar Singh and others were in possession of their allotted land and it is after six-seven years that their possession is alleged to have been disturbed; that the order of the S.D.O. is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the proceedings could be taken on complaint by the learned S.D.O. or Mohar Singh and others in the court of the Magistrate, but in the instant case the S.D.O. has directed the police to challan the revisionists ; that the order of the S.D.O. is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the allotment pertains to 1976 and the limitation for moving the application was three years from the date of allotment. 5. I find that the revision was decided by the learned Additional Commissioner on 1-10-1984. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the order of the trial court is an administrative order and there is no ground for interference. 5. I find that the revision was decided by the learned Additional Commissioner on 1-10-1984. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the order of the trial court is an administrative order and there is no ground for interference. In Section 198-A of Z.A. & L.R. Act no period has been prescribed for evicting such a person other than the allottee from the land allotted to the person concerned. Section 198-A (2) of the Act reads as under :- "Where any person, after being evicted under this section, re-occupies the land or any part thereof without lawful, authority, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to two years but which shall not be less than three months and also with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees." From the above it is obvious that this section provides the procedure that if any person, after being evicted under Section 198-A (1) of the Act re-occupies the land or any part thereof without lawful authority, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years but which shall not be less than three months and also with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees. 6. In the instant case the learned Additional Commissioner has found that the allottees were put in possession over the land in suit and thereafter they occupied the land. The orders of the S.D.O. so far as they related to legal procedure are correct but in case in which the revisionists have alleged that they have not occupied the land allotted to the opposite parties, it was the duty of the S.D.O. to have verified this fact and thereafter he should have taken action. This has not been done in the instant case. Consequently the revision succeeds and the S.D.O. is directed to demarcate the plot Nos. 97 and 98 and thereafter he should have to see that if the revisionists have occupied the land allotted to allottees then he will deal with the matter in accordance with the provision under Section 198-A (2) of the Z.A. & L.R. Act.