Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 617 (ALL)

Surendra Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-03-27

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Sri Arum Kumar Singh-I learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and is directed against the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, respondent no. 2. 3. The facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 122-B were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by the Lekhpal. On the receipt of notice the petitioner filed his objection. The Tehsildar, Amroha by his order dated 14.11.2014 dropped the proceedings on the ground that they had been initiated without any resolution of the Gaon Sabha and without any demarcation having been carried out on the spot. It was further observed that fresh proceedings could be initiated after a proper demarcation had been made. Against this order a revision was filed by the Gaon Sabha. The respondent no. 3, Collector, Amroha by his order dated 30.08.2014 dismissed the revision as barred by time. 4. It appears that thereafter a letter was written by the Regional Government Counsel, (Revenue), Moradabad Division, Moradabad to the Commissioner intimating that the documents of the case had been submitted to him which were returned saying that a writ petition would be filed against the order of the Collector. Thus, by this letter direction for a writ petition being filed against the order of the Collector were prayed for because the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the Gaon Sabha property. On this letter the Commissioner wrote a letter to the Collector, Amroha to review his orders so as to, ensure that no loss is caused to Gaon Sabha property. It is this letter of the Commissioner which is impugned in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Collector was a judicial order and the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to direct him to review his judicial order. 6. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Tehsildar provided that fresh proceedings under Section 122-B could be initiated after proper demarcation had been done. No demarcation has in fact been carried out thereafter and therefore also the direction contained in the impugned letter is illegal. 7. 6. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Tehsildar provided that fresh proceedings under Section 122-B could be initiated after proper demarcation had been done. No demarcation has in fact been carried out thereafter and therefore also the direction contained in the impugned letter is illegal. 7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner this court had while hearing the matter initially on 29.01.2015 directed the respondents to conduct a proper survey and submit its report to this court. 8. The report required to be furnished vide order dated 29.01.2015 has been obtained. A copy of the same has been produced by learned Standing Counsel and the same is taken on record. 9. Perusal of the instructions and report received by learned Standing Counsel reveals that in pursuance of the order dated 29.01.2015 a revenue team was constituted, consisting of two Revenue Inspectors, Nayab Tehsildar and the Tehsildar, Amroha. Their report indicates that plot no. 85 is recorded in the revenue records as manure pit. The petitioner has raised a boundary wall around this plot and the same is being used for making compost. North of this plot exists Chak nos. 86 and 93 of the mother and other family members of the petitioner. On the south east corner of Chak no. 86, a room containing a Tubewell has been constructed and half of this construction exists on Plot no. 85 which is in question in the instant matter, being Gaon Sabha property. 10. From the above report it is therefore primafacie clear that the petitioner and his family members are in a an unauthorised occupation of Plot no. 85 reserved for manure pits. 11. Insofar as, challenge to the impugned letter of the Commissioner is concerned, it would be sufficient to state that this is a mere letter. There is nothing on record to show that the Collector, Amroha had done anything in pursuance of this letter. 12. Under the circumstances I see no justification for the petitioner being aggrieved by the same. In case, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted and it is found that the Commissioner could not have issued any directions to the Collector, yet, the petitioner would have reason to be aggrieved only after this letter is acted upon by the Collector. In case, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted and it is found that the Commissioner could not have issued any directions to the Collector, yet, the petitioner would have reason to be aggrieved only after this letter is acted upon by the Collector. Till such time no action is taken in pursuance of the letter aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner must necessarily be held to be pre-mature. The letter impugned is a mere communication and is not a judicial order and therefore requires no interference. 13. Even otherwise, there is now a report submitted by a revenue team, available on the record of this writ petition which indicates, atleast primafacie, that the petitioner and his family members are in a unauthorised occupation of Plot no. 85 and therefore even if the proceedings under Section 122-B are revived, the same cannot be said to be illegal. 14. Accordingly and for the reasons given above I find no justification to interfere with the impugned letter specially in view of the discussion recorded above. 15. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.