Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1910 (ALL)

Kripa Shanker Pandey v. State of U. P.

2014-07-02

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The grievance in the petition relates to the failure of the authorities to enforce orders which have been passed under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 against respondent Nos. 14 to 43. Copies of the aforesaid orders have been annexed as Annexures-8, 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the lands in question are public utility lands which have been encroached upon and the orders under Section 122-B have been not been enforced. 3. Rule 115-E of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rule, 1952 makes a provision for the execution of an order inter alia for eviction that is issued by the Collector under Section 122-B. Hence, in view of Rule 115-E, we observe that unless the orders which have been passed under Section 122-B have been stayed, modified or set aside by any higher forum, the authorities concerned are duty bound to enforce the orders in accordance with law after due notice to the affected parties. 4. In view of the order which we proposes to pass, it is not necessary for this Court to issue notice to the private respondents. We direct the Assistant Collector, respondent No.8 to issue due notice to the private respondents to explain whether the orders which have been passed under Section 122-B have been stayed, modified or challenged before any higher forum. Upon due verification and if it is found that the orders under Section 122-B continue to hold the field, necessary steps shall be taken in accordance with law for the enforcement of those orders in accordance with Rule 115-E by the Assistant Collector concerned. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in regard to the lodgement of FIR is now governed by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 12.11.2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.68 of 2008 (Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others). 6. We, accordingly, direct the competent authority to act in accordance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court expeditiously. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.