Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 15 (ALL)

Ram Sanehi v. State Of U. P.

2004-01-06

RAKESH TIWARI

body2004
ORDER : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16.12.1983 passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 2.8.1982 passed by the respondent No. 2 to this writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a notice in form 49-Ka issued by Tehsildar Assistant Collector, Ist. Class, Agra was served on the petitioner inter alia stating that he had illegally taken possession of Gaon Sabha land No. 46 measuring 0-0-3 since 1383 fasli and is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 150 as damages. The petitioner filed an objection inter-alia stating that he is not in possession over the land in dispute and further that proceedings have been initiated against him due to enmity with the members of Gaon Sabha. It was also stated that the Eekhpal had submitted a wrong report under Rule 115Ck of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It was claimed by him that he had purchased an area of 0-5-0 of plot No. 48 and had raised pucca wall over this land in an area of 0-1-10 of the land of his share of plot No. 48. 4. It appears from the record that the plot No. 46 area of plot No. 46 is 0-15-15 has been allotted to 4 persons while on spot it was actually 0.19-5. This mistake in area of 0-3-12 plot No. 46 is reflected from the revenue record since the time of preparation of record by consolidation proceedings. The order of ejectment imposition damages to the tune of Rs. 150 and further direction to the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 1/8th of the total damages per month till he is ejected was passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Ist class. 5. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the Collector, Agra which was dismissed by order and judgment dated 2.8.1984. From the perusal of the record it appears that the courts below have passed the order only on the basis of map which had been taken into consideration and there was no actual measurement of the plot. The judgment given by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Agra appears to be based on the defective evidence of Land Management Committee. 6. From the perusal of the record it appears that the courts below have passed the order only on the basis of map which had been taken into consideration and there was no actual measurement of the plot. The judgment given by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Agra appears to be based on the defective evidence of Land Management Committee. 6. It further appears that there is no demarcation of plot No. 46 and 48, in these circumstances the contention of the petitioner is that there is mistake in revenue record and it has to be decided before any order of imposition of damages. The orders impugned are arbitrary and being based on objective evidence are liable to be quashed. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. The revisional court, Agra is directed to decide the matter afresh after the measurement of the plot and their demarcation. No order as to costs.