Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1340 (ALL)

Ram Kishore v. District Magistrate

2003-05-23

ANJANI KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar, J. S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has made a statement that he may be permitted to delete the name of the Respondent No. 3 from the array of parties. Permission prayed for is granted. Sri Mishra is directed to delete the name of the Respondent No. 3 which he has done in the Court itself. Thereafter, the matter was heard on merits and it was dismissed by me on 23rd May, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now, here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition. 2. The Petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 27th February, 1984 passed by the Assistant Collector / Tehsildar, Bindaki, Fatehpur (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), and the order dated 15th November, 1984 passed by the Collector, Fatehpur (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). 3. By the impugned order dated 27th February, 1984 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the Petitioner has been found to be in occupation of Plot No. 588 unauthorisedly. Therefore, the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar directed that the Petitioner will be liable to pay damages amounting to Rs. 3,000. 4. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that a complaint was lodged against the Petitioner that he has unauthorisedly occupied the land belonging to Gram Samaj, namely, Plot No. 588 for the period 1373 F. to 1382 F. and he has ripe up the benefit of the trees during these three years, the market value whereof is not less than Rs.3,000. Against the aforesaid complaint, the Petitioner was asked to submit explanation and the Petitioner submitted his objection/explanation and thereafter the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar by the order dated 24th December, 1979 has found that no case is made out against the Petitioner. Therefore, the complaint is rejected. 5. Against the order of the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar dated 24th December, 1979, a review application has been filed by Ram Krishna, whereby the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar has cancelled the order dated 24th December, 1979 and directed that notice be issued again in Form 49-Ka to the opposite party. Ram Kishore (O.P.) has submitted his objection to the notice referred to above that the Assistant Collector has passed the order after hearing the matter on merits on 24th December, 1979 which cannot be reviewed. Ram Kishore (O.P.) has submitted his objection to the notice referred to above that the Assistant Collector has passed the order after hearing the matter on merits on 24th December, 1979 which cannot be reviewed. The matter went upto the Additional Commissioner and thereafter the matter was heard and Ram Kishore has not appeared. Instead one Pradhan of the village, namely, Ram Sanehi and the Lekhpal were examined on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 6. After considering the evidence on record and the respective case of the parties, the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar vide its order dated 27th February, 1984 directed for payment of damages which has been fixed as Rs. 3,000 to the Petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred a revision u/s 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Collector, Fatehpur. The Collector after hearing the revisionist and the Gram Sabha has arrived at the conclusion that the land in question is a property of Gram Sabha and the standing trees have been cut away by the Petitioner unauthorisedly, therefore, the damages which was directed to be paid do not warrant interference in revision and the revision was accordingly dismissed. 7. This writ petition was admitted by this Court and this Court vide its interim order dated 13th February, 1985 stayed the realisation of the amount from the Petitioner u/s 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 8. This interim order is continuing since 1985. In my opinion, the present writ petition for a petty amount of Rs. 3,000 which was directed to be deposited by the Petitioner in the year 1985 and which has been stayed by this Court, learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that instead of hearing the interim matter, the petition itself may be decided on merits. 9. In my opinion, the finding arrived at by the revisional court as well as the Assistant Collector do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the revisional court as well as the Assistant Collector suffers from manifest error of law. It has not been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that because of the annoyance of the then Pradhan of the Gram Sabha, proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner but no such case has been set up by the Petitioner before the authorities that they have considered this aspect of the matter and recorded a finding that the Petitioner unauthorisedly occupied the land belong to Gram Sabha and cut down the trees. Therefore, the Petitioner is liable to pay damages which total comes to Rs. 3,000. 10. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 13th February, 1985 is vacated. There will be no order as to costs.