Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 545 (ALL)

KESHMANI SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-02-14

BHARAT BHUSHAN, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2013
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner claims to be resident of Village Oakopur, Nyaya Panchayat Nonari, Block Rampur, Pargana Gopalapur, Tehsil Mariyahun, Distt. Jaunpur. He is describing himself as social worker, who is interested in the social affairs and development of Nyay Panchayat Nonari and is not a beneficiary of any development schemes in any manner. It is stated that Village Oakopur and Raibhanpur also form part of aforesaid Nyay Panchayat Nanori. 3. The petitioner has prayed for directions to take legal action against those persons, who are illegally and unauthorisedly in possession of the land in Arazi Nos. 200/0.684 hects. recorded as Bheeta; Arazi No. 202/0.4210 of Jalmagna and Arazi No. 201/0.251 and 205/0.498 recorded Naveen Parti situated in Village Raibhanpur, Nyay Panchayat Nonari, Block Rampur Pargana Gopalapur Tehsil Mariyahun Distt. Jaunpur and further to decide the representation dated 25.8.2012. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that some persons are in unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid plots, which are recorded as boundaries of pond and that in view of the judgment in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, AIR 2001 SC 3215 , which has been followed by this Court in Prem Singh v. State of U.P., P.I.L. No. 63380 of 2012 decided on 6.12.2012, and in pursuance to the orders of Board of Revenue U.P. dated 4.10.2012, possession of the persons on the pond, which is habitat of the village should be removed. The petitioner has also relied upon an interim order of the Court in Om Prakash Verma and others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 6472 of 2012 in which orders were passed to remove encroachments from village pond. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. He states that in para 6 and 7 the petitioner has himself stated that the persons, who were in occupation of the aforesaid plots belong to Scheduled Castes and have been allotted the land on lease by the Land Management Committee. He submits that in these paragraphs the petitioner has admitted that the persons in occupation of ‘Bheeta’ (land adjoining the pond) were allotted this land by the previous Pradhan. He submits that in these paragraphs the petitioner has admitted that the persons in occupation of ‘Bheeta’ (land adjoining the pond) were allotted this land by the previous Pradhan. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition are quoted as below : “6. That it is further submitted that in the village Raibhanpur Harinath Chootey Lal sons of Khatai, Lalma son of Pyarey Lal Nakhadoo son of Bhikhai, Ram Jeet son of Sachanu, Rajesh and Vinod sons of Phoolchandra and Gotu son of Bachanu are residing in the aforesaid village Raibhanpur, Nyay Panchayat Nonari, Block Rampur Pargana Gopalapur Tehsil Mariyahun District Jaunpur. More so the aforesaid persons are belonging to the Schedule Caste and the Gram Sabha has allotted the land on lease (Patta) in favour of the aforesaid persons and are in possession over the land which was provided to them. For kind perusal and consideration of this Hon’ble Court a true/photo copy of the Khatauni of Basic year 1419-1424 F showing their names in the revenue record land in is being filed and marked as Annexure 2 to this writ petition. 7. That it is also further submitted that the aforesaid persons are fully in unauthorised occupants over the land of Bheeta and Jalmagna in the year 2011 and also they have constructed their Madaha and other things over the aforesiad land of Bheeta and Jalmagana Land.” 6. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the persons, who are alleged to be in occupation of the land recorded as ‘Bheeta’, belong to ‘Musahar’ caste, which is a caste consisting of poorest of the poor persons of society. The present Pradhan Smt. Shashi Singh, wife of Shri Vinod Singh appears to be aggrieved with the allotments made by the previous Pradhan on the resolution passed by Land Management Committee and wants to drive away the poor people from the village. On the allegations made by her these plots were allotted by previous Pradhan on which occupations are made by raising ‘jhopari’ and ‘garha’ (temporary residential constructions). In her application dated 8.11.2011 she had stated that these persons are managing to live on the land by making temporary constructions for several years. 7. On the allegations made by her these plots were allotted by previous Pradhan on which occupations are made by raising ‘jhopari’ and ‘garha’ (temporary residential constructions). In her application dated 8.11.2011 she had stated that these persons are managing to live on the land by making temporary constructions for several years. 7. On the admissions made in the writ petition we find that the present Pradhan wants to drive away the poorest of poor in the village form the land, which was allotted by the previous Pradhan and that the petitioner appears to have been set up by her to file the petition for this purpose. 8. We take strong exception to the action taken by the Pradhan, who instead of protecting the poor persons of the village having equal right to live in the village and should be made beneficiaries of the development schemes. There are no allegations that they have occupied the land unauthorisedly or have encroached on the land of the pond. Bheeta and Navin Parti are surplus Gaon Sabha lands, which may be allotted under UPZA & LR Act in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Further there are no allegations that the Land Management Committee has initiated any steps for cancellations of allotments made to such persons under Section 198A of the Act. 9. The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- with observations that the District Magistrate will protect the possession of the persons, who are occupying the land under the valid allotments. 10. Let a copy of the order be given to the Chief Standing Counsel for being forwarded to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur for compliance. —————