Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 614 (ALL)

Pooran Singh v. District Judge Pilibhit

2000-04-24

R.K.AGRAWAL

body2000
Judgment R.K. Agrawal, J. (1) The petitioners Pooran Singh, Basant Singh and Harcharan Singh S/o Sardar Kartar Singh have filed the present Writ Petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16-11-1988 passed by the S.D.M. Pilibhit respondent No. 2 filed as Annexure 12 to the writ petition and the order dated 21-7-1992 passed by the District Judge Pilibhit in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 40/90 of 1998 filed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition. By the order dated 16-11-1988 the S.D.M. Pilibhit had restrained the petitioners from interfering with the disputed land in any manner. The appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the District Judge, Pilibhit. (2) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:- "According to the petitioners plot No. 36 (10.31 acres), plot No. 39/1 (2.90 acres) and plot No. 40/1 (3.71 acres) situated in village Lohana Pargana and Tehsil Pooranpur district Pilibhit was leased out to the petitioners by the Zamin-dars much prior to the Zamindari Abolition and the petitioners have been in exclusive cultivatory possession over the same. The petitioners became Sirdar and subsequently became Sankramaniya Bhumidhar by operation of law and their names have been recorded as such in the revenue records as per khatauni of 1937 Fasli the extract of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition." (3) A notice dated 30-12-1970 was is sued under Section 3 of U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1970 (U.P. Act No. 30 of 1970) for the ejectment of the petitioners and a case was registered as Case No. 63 of 1970 before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority after considering the objection raised by the petitioners vide order dated 5-2-1976 quashed the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of notice dated 30-12-1970 and directed the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 after serving a notice under Section 4 of the Act. (4) According to the petitioners without issuing any fresh notice as directed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 5-2-1976 the ejectment of the petitioner was ordered on 27-8-1976, against which the petitioners preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1976 before the District Judge, Pilibhit. (4) According to the petitioners without issuing any fresh notice as directed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 5-2-1976 the ejectment of the petitioner was ordered on 27-8-1976, against which the petitioners preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1976 before the District Judge, Pilibhit. The District Judge, Pilibhit vide judgment and order dated 14-10-1976 partly allowed the appeal and quashed the order imposing damages on the petitioners. He however, affirmed the order passed by the prescribed authority directing eviction of the petitioners from the plots in question. However, he issued certain direction, which is reproduced below:- "It is, however, directed that while executing the order of eviction, the prescribed authority shall ensure that the dispute premises are duly demarcated by process of measure ments and otherwise, before the appellant is made to quit and vacate such premises." The order dated 14-10-1976 passed by the District Judge, Pilibhit has become final between the parties. (5) It appears that the Regional Forest Officer, Pilibhit respondent No. 3 started dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question without complying the direction given by the District Judge in his judgment and order dated 14-10-1976 whereupon the petitioners applied before the prescribed authority to restrain the respondent No. 3 from ejecting the petitioners. The prescribed authority vide order dated 20-4-1981 passed an order restraining the respondent No. 3 from Dejecting the petitioners. However on an application filed by the respondent No. 3 on 16-11-1988 the prescribed authority passed an order on the same date restraining the petitioners from interfering with the disputed land in any manner. The said order was challenged in appeal by the petitioners unsuccessfully. (6) I have heard Shri Murlidhar, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel who represents the respondents. Shri Murlidhar learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the order dated 14-10-1976 passed by the District Judge Pilibhit in Misc. The said order was challenged in appeal by the petitioners unsuccessfully. (6) I have heard Shri Murlidhar, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel who represents the respondents. Shri Murlidhar learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the order dated 14-10-1976 passed by the District Judge Pilibhit in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1976 in which the direction was given to the prescribed authority to ensure that the disputed premises are duly demarcated by process of measurements and otherwise before the appellant is made to quit and vacated such premises, which direction has become final has not been complied with by the prescribed authority before passing the order dated 16-11-1988 restraining the petitioners from interfering with the disputed land in any manner and therefore the order dated 16-11-1988 cannot be al lowed to stand. He further submitted that unless the disputed premises is duly demarcated the petitioners cannot be evicted and that being so there is no question of the prescribed authority i.e. S.D.M. Pilibhit in passing the order restraining the petitioner from interfering with the disputed land. He further submitted that the District Judge, Pilibhit had not taken into account the direction given by his predecessor contained in the judgment and order dated 14-10-1976 while dismissing their appeal. Learned Standing Counsel who represented the respondent invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 2 of the short counter affidavit filed by Shri Amar Singh, Deputy Ranger, South Pilibhit, Forest Division. Pilibhit filed alongwith an application and invited the attention of the Court to Annexure CA-1 of the said affidavit which mentioned that respondent No. 3 has been given possession of the property in dispute after demarcation. Annexure CA-1 is the certificate dated 20-3-1993 which does not bear the signature of the petitioners and bears the signature of only officials of the Forest Department and Revenue Department. Thus it cannot be said that the property in dispute have been demarcated or peaceful possession has been given over. Annexure CA-1 is the certificate dated 20-3-1993 which does not bear the signature of the petitioners and bears the signature of only officials of the Forest Department and Revenue Department. Thus it cannot be said that the property in dispute have been demarcated or peaceful possession has been given over. (7) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I find that the order dated 14-10-1976 passed by the District Judge in which the direction was given to the prescribed authority to demarcate the premises before the petitioners is quit and vacate such premises has become final between the parties thus the direction have to be complied with by the prescribed authority before the petitioners can be ejected. No material has been brought on record by the respondents that the disputed premises have been demarcated. Thus the petitioners cannot be evicted from the premises in dispute unless and until demarcation by way of process of measurement or otherwise is carried out. The orders dated 16-11- 1988 passed by the S.D.M. filed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition and of the District Judge, Pilibhit dated 21-7-1992 filed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. (8) No other point has been pressed. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.