JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The counsel for the petitioner states that all the connected writ petitions pertain to the same land, facts and circumstances and having arisen out of a common judgment dated 31.12.1991 may be decided together. The counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer, hence these petitions are being decided by this common judgment as questions of fact and law indicated the same. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional District Magistrate/Upper Collector. Muzaffarnagar dated 31.12.1991. 4. By the aforesaid order, the authority has allowed the revision of the Gaon Sabha under Section 122-B (4-A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute filed against the order of the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarnagar dated 16.2.1991 withdrawing the notice and proceedings under Section 122-B initiated on the complaint of the Lekhpal/Secretary, Land Management Committee, Village Purkazi Dehat, Pargana Purchapar District Muzaffarnagar. 5. The fact as culled out from the record and from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that Khata No. 1047 Khasra plot No. 1174 was recorded in the name of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam Lucknow. In khatauni for the year 1398-1403 Fasli, the above khata is not recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. These documents have been appended as Annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively. 6. The petitioner claims himself to be the landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is averred in the writ petition that he has occupied the part of the aforesaid land with the permission of the recorded tenure holder prior to 30th June, 1985 and thereafter constructed a Jhopari on it; that he applied to the Gaon Sabha for allotment of the land on 20.4.1989 vide resolution No. 2 with Pradhan of the Village who proposed allotment of the portion of the land to the petitioner on which he had built Jhopari (thased house) on the ground that they are in occupation of the land for more than five years. 7. 7. It also appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the Lekhpal objected to the resolution on the ground that the land was recorded in the name of Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow, hence, the allotment cannot be made by the resolution by the Pradhan of the village without permission of the Competent Authority. 8. The Assistant Collector, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar in the aforesaid backdrop, issued a notice to the petitioner under Rule 115-D on 31.7.1990 and initiated proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act. The objections were filed by the petitioner inter alia that the land was recorded in the name of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow and Gaon Sabha has to allot the said part of land to him on which he had built his thashed roof house (Jhopari). The Assistant Collector by his order dated 16.2.1991 withdrew the notice dropping the proceedings allegedly on the ground that provision of Section 122-B of the 1950 Act could not be invoked in respect of a land which is not recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Similar orders were also passed in respect of other persons who have also encroached upon the land along with the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Gaon Sabha filed revision in the Court of A.D.M. Muzaffarnagar. Similar orders were also passed in respect of other persons who have also encroached upon the land along with the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Gaon Sabha filed revision in the Court of A.D.M. Muzaffarnagar. The A.D.M., Muzaffarnagar allowed the revision by the order dated 31.12.1991 directing eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute holding that : "i{kx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdZ lquus ,oe izLrqr fuxjkuh o voj U;k;ky; ds i=kofy;ksa dk HkfyHkkafr voyksdu o v/;;u djus ij eSa bl er dk gWw fd i=koyh ij 30 twu lu~ 1985 ls iwoZ dk izfroknhx.k dk dCtk gksus dk dksbZ Bksl izek.k ,oa lk{; miyC/k ugha gS] ftlds dkj.k mUgsa mldk ykHk fn;k tk lds] tgka rd fookfnr Hkwfe ds xkao lHkk lEefr gksus vFkok u gksus dk izu gS] ;g lgh gS fd vfHkys[kksa esa pyfp= fuxe ¼y[kuŽ ds uke ls vafdr gS] fdUrq Js.kh 6 ¼2½ Hkh vafdr gS] ys[kiky ds c;kukuqlkj ;g Hkwfe fdlh le; esa xkao lHkk ls gh py fp= fuxe dks nh xbZ rFkkfi foHkkx }kjk orZeku esa mldh dksbZ ns[kHkky ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k xkaolHkk }kjk gh iwoZor ns[kHkky dh tk jgh gksxh] ftyk kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼jktLo½ us dgh gS] blds vfrfjDr izfroknhx.k ds ikl fookfnr Hkwfe dk dksbZ iV~Vk o cSukek vkfn u gksus ds dkj.k ;g fufoZokn gS fd mudk dCtk] vukf/kdkj dCtk gS] ftlls mUgsa csn[ky fd;k tkuk vko;d ,oa U;k;ksfpr gSA mi;qZDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij mDr leLr fuxjkfu;ksa dks Lohdkj djrs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns’k [kf.Mr dj izfroknhx.k dks {kfriwfrZ ls eqDr djrs gq,] fookfnr Hkwfe ls csn[ky fd;k tkrk gSA vknsk dh ,d&,d izfr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks mudh okn i=kofy;ksa lfgr csn[kyh dh dk;Zokgh fu;ekuqlkj lqfufpr djus gsrq iszf"kr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh leLr vkSipkfjDrk,a iw.kZ djus ds mijkUr vfHkys[kkxkj esa lafpr dh tk;sA lR;sUnz feJk vij dysDVj] fnukad 31-12-1991 eqtQjuxjA 9. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid finding recorded by the Collector on the ground that proceedings under Section 122-B can only be initiated against the land recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha and that once the Gaon Sabha settled the land in favour of the Corporation which was the recorded owner of the land as Bhumidar with the non-transferable right, proceedings could not have been initiated by the Gaon Sabha. 10. 10. It is further stated that the finding recorded by the Collector that classification of the land as clause 6(2) according to the para A-124 of Land Revenue Manual will not give any right to the Gaon Sabha to initiate the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act. 11. The relevant extract of Para A-124 regarding arrangement of holdings within each village in khatauni is as under : “A-124. Arrangement of holdings.—The arrangement of land within each village in the khatauni shall be as follows : (1) Land cultivated by Government of (Gaon Sabha) or any other local authority entrusted with management of land under Section 117-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.” 12. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has further erred in law in recording the finding that there is no proof or evidence of the petitioner containing that he is occupying the land since prior to 30th June, 1985. He submits that in the notice under Section 115 itself the occupation has stated to be since 1393 fasli and that the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 20.4.1989 is on record, which shows that the petitioner is in occupation of the land for more than four years. He states that the petitioner had on oath before the Assistant Collector pleaded that he is in occupation since 30.4.1985 but no reason was given by the Court to disbelieve the evidence given by the petitioner. It is lastly urged that since the petitioner has constructed Jhopari and occupying the same portion of the disputed land for long time, he being a landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste, is entitled to protection of sub-section (4F) of Section 122-B of the Act. 13. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the land in question is not only recorded in the name of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow but also recorded under Clause 6 (2) in the revenue records, as such, the Gaon Sabha is entitled to manage the land on behalf of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow. 14. 13. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the land in question is not only recorded in the name of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow but also recorded under Clause 6 (2) in the revenue records, as such, the Gaon Sabha is entitled to manage the land on behalf of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow. 14. Reliance has also been placed in para 5 of the counter affidavit, wherein the averments of the petitioner made in the writ petition that he is a landless agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste, is denied stating it to be false and baseless and that petitioner had encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land from the year 1998. 15. It is submitted that the land in dispute cannot be allotted in the name of the petitioner and that he has also not produced any documentary evidence to establish the fact that any patta regarding land in dispute was ever granted in his favour by the Gaon Sabha. He has then stated that even the permission, said to have been granted to him by the recorded owner, has also not been filed or produced by the petitioner at any stage. Therefore, neither he can occupy the land encroached upon by him in absence of any patta by the Gaon Sabha nor express any permission of the land holder under whom the land was being managed by the Gaon Sabha being classified in the revenue record under Section 6(2) of para A-124. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner had illegally encroached the Gaon Sabha land and notice under Section 49-Ka was issued to the petitioner for initiating proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. It also appears that the impugned order dated 31.12.1991 passed by the Additional Collector/Upper Collector in accordance with the provisions of law which is well founded and well considered. Findings of fact have been given that land in question having been in clause 6(2) in village revenue record, held to be Gaon Sabha land and the Gaon Sabha was looking after it taking care of the land in question, as such the proceedings do not suffer from any lacuna or illegality. 17. Findings of fact have been given that land in question having been in clause 6(2) in village revenue record, held to be Gaon Sabha land and the Gaon Sabha was looking after it taking care of the land in question, as such the proceedings do not suffer from any lacuna or illegality. 17. On specific query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that no permission from the U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow to whom it alleges to be recorded tenure holder is on record. He also stated that no patta was ever granted by the Gaon Sabha. In fact from the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that Pradhan had given some assurances that he will get the permission for occupancy of the petitioner from the U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow if the wife of the petitioner undergoes family planning operation. 18. Admittedly, according to the averments made in the writ petition, the Lekhpal objected to the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha to the effect that no resolution could be passed by the Gaon Sabha to give the land to the petitioner as it was only holding after the land in question recorded under Clause 6(2) of the Act in the village. The Gaon Sabha has full right to look after the land which is recorded in the name of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner also therefore cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or authority. The petitioner has totally failed to produce any documentary evidence that he is in possession of the land much before 30.6.1985 and has also not been able to show any patta or permission from the Gaon Sabha or the U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, Lucknow to occupy the land. He is a rank trespasser and there appears to be some collusion between him and the Gaon Pradhan, so as to show that he was in occupancy of the land for more than five years. Though from the record, it appears that this was not so and he had encroached upon the land without legal permission of the recorded tenure holder of the Gaon Sabha for more than about four years. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed and the order impugned is upheld. Though from the record, it appears that this was not so and he had encroached upon the land without legal permission of the recorded tenure holder of the Gaon Sabha for more than about four years. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed and the order impugned is upheld. However, looking into the fact that petitioner claims himself to be a landless agriculture labourer, he may apply to the Gaon Sabha for a Patta afresh, which may be considered by the Gaon Sabha within a period of two months from today. 20. The connected writ petitions are also decided accordingly. ————