Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3641 (ALL)

Ikerar Husain v. State of U. P.

2014-12-05

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioners are residents of Village Singan Kheda, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur and they are all small tenure holders. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, they aver that the small tenure holders of the village like them whose land is adjacent to an under construction Sports Complex and Campus of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University, Rampur are being harassed by the respondents by destroying their standing crops and cutting trees and efforts are being made to dispossess them from their Bhumidhari land which is their only source of livelihood. It has been alleged that the district level officers are attempting to change the nature of the agricultural land of small tenure holders for carving out a road and for raising a boundary wall of the Campus of the Sports Complex without carrying out a proper demarcation. Hence, it has been stated that the land of the existing road in the village map has been illegally included in the Campus of the University or the Sports Complex by the officials of the District Magistrate and the Sub Divisional Magistrate and JCB machines are being used to run over the standing crops. The twenty two petitioners have in para 6 of the petition furnished details of the holdings and have annexed photocopies of the relevant extracts from the Khatauni. In this process, it is alleged that the farmers are being dispossessed without the acquisition of the land and without carrying out a proper demarcation. Several representations were addressed to the authorities and when those did not yield any result, this Court has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The reliefs which have been sought are in the following terms: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the farmers/destroy the crops, green valuable trees of the farmers standing over their Bhumidhari land situated at village Singan Khera (Majera Aliaganj/Majera Shaukat Nagar), Pergana & Tehsil Sadar, District-Rampur, Uttar Pradesh without recourse to law. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to ensure the exact area of the Mohammad Ali Jauhar University Rampur as notified by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in Gazette Notification and the sanctioned area of Sports Complex Rampur by measuring the same from the fixed point in presence of the neighbouring tenure holders, thereafter carved out the proposed road in the land already left for it and the excess land, if any, may be returned to the concerned tenure holders forthwith. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay appropriate damages for destroying the standing crops/valuable green trees standing over the Bhumidhari Land of the farmers of the village Singan Khera, Pergana & Tehsil Sadar, District-Rampur, Uttar Pradesh as their land has not been acquired in accordance with law till date. (d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide ample opportunity of personal hearing to each and every affected farmers in the village Singan Khera, Pergana & Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh before acquiring their land." 3. During the course of the hearing, the basic grievance which has been set up is that a proper demarcation has not been carried out under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and in the absence of demarcation, the Bhumidhari land of the small tenure holders would be in serious danger of unlawful encroachment, resulting in the destruction of crops and trees and of the source of livelihood. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in these proceedings in pursuance of the direction which was issued by this Court on 14 November 2014 to the State, by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Rampur. Of the twenty two petitioners, it has been stated that only the land of the first petitioner has been acquired for the purposes of the Sports Complex. It has been stated that Gata No. 1169, admeasures 2.024 hectare out of which the first petitioner has a 1/8th share which was acquired and in pursuance of an award, an amount of Rs.35,69,520/- was paid over. A photocopy of the consolidated voucher for payment is annexed as Annexure CA-1. Hence, it has been stated that the lands of the remaining twenty one petitioners have not been acquired. A photocopy of the consolidated voucher for payment is annexed as Annexure CA-1. Hence, it has been stated that the lands of the remaining twenty one petitioners have not been acquired. In response to this averment, it has been stated on behalf of the first petitioner that the present proceedings are not relateable to the Gata Number which has been acquired. 5. In the present case, we are of the view that now that it has been admitted on behalf of the respondents that, in any event, no lands of twenty one of the twenty two petitioners have been acquired, the petitioners are entitled to legitimately contend that they cannot be dispossessed in the process of the construction of either the road or the Sports Complex for the purposes of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University. The legal provisions in regard to acquisition of land provide for the manner in which a land holder can be dispossessed of his holding. In the absence of such procedure being followed, the land holding of the individual Bhumidhar which constitute his source of livelihood must be protected against any unlawful interference. Hence, the request which has been made before the Court for a proper demarcation of the land under Section 41 of the Act is proper and appropriate because that is the only means through which a land holder can legitimately resist any attempt at unlawful dispossession so that the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution against deprivation of property save by authority of law is duly protected. 6. In the circumstances, we direct that a proper demarcation of the land of the petitioners under Section 41 of the Act be duly and expeditiously carried out no later than within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We direct the District Magistrate and Collector, Rampur to personally oversee the process of demarcation so as to ensure that demarcation is strictly carried out in accordance with the recorded land holdings of the petitioners. We direct the District Magistrate and Collector, Rampur to personally oversee the process of demarcation so as to ensure that demarcation is strictly carried out in accordance with the recorded land holdings of the petitioners. Since the allegation of the petitioners is that land in excess of what has been acquired is being taken over for the purpose of construction of the road or as the case may be, the Sports Complex for the University, the District Magistrate shall duly ensure that excess land is not taken over, over and above what has been acquired by following due process of law. 7. In the present case, it is only twenty two petitioners who have moved the Court but they represent the grievance of the small tenure holders of the village who may not be in a position to approach the Court either for want of resources or due to illiteracy. Hence, we direct the District Magistrate to follow the aforesaid directions in letter and spirit in respect of any other tenure holder of the village who may have a grievance similar to that which has been espoused by the petitioners in these proceedings. An individual villager should not be compelled to move the Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and the remedies available under Section 41 of the Act should be uniformly provided upon being invoked by any person aggrieved. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.