Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1685 (ALL)

Vindhawasni Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-05-03

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT According to the petitioner in the present public interest litigation, Arazi No 29 admeasuring 1.106 hectares in Village Nakati is registered as banjar land. The land was stated to have been allotted on a lease for agricultural purposes to nineteen villagers. Subsequently, a case was registered under Section 198 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 for cancellation of the lease. By an order dated 14 March 2005, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Chandauli passed an order of cancellation under Section 198 (4). The order, is stated to have been confirmed in revision by the revisional authority, namely the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi. The petitioner has also referred to a decree of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli in Suit No 203 of 2000, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-2. A first information report was lodged on 1 April 2015 under Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act in Case Crime No 60 of 2015. These facts have also been adverted to in a report which has been submitted by the Naib Tehsildar on 1 August 2015, purportedly to the Collector, Chandauli. 2. At this stage, the facts which have been adverted to by the petitioner, particularly in relation to the effect of the decree of the Civil Court, the nature of the land and its identity cannot appropriately be resolved in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reduced to its simplest form, the case of the petitioner is that though the leases which were earlier granted, have been cancelled under Section 198 (4), steps have not been taken by the State Government to obtain possession of the land. In this regard, as the record before the Court would indicate, the district administration is already seized of the matter since a report has been submitted on 1 August 2015 to the Collector (Annexure-5). 3. On carefully examining the record, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate for the Court to enter upon a detailed analysis of the facts some of which may raise disputed questions. However, we deem it appropriate and proper to direct the District Magistrate to look into all aspects of the matter pursuant to the report which has been submitted by the Naib Tehsildar and to determine what action, if any, is necessary. However, we deem it appropriate and proper to direct the District Magistrate to look into all aspects of the matter pursuant to the report which has been submitted by the Naib Tehsildar and to determine what action, if any, is necessary. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.