Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2388 (ALL)

Lallan Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-07-11

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT This petition has purportedly been filed in public interest for enforcement of an order dated 18.6.2015 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rasara, District Ballia on an application dated 18.6.2015 filed by the petitioner. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the private respondent no.5 had illegally encroached the public utility land and on the application moved by the petitioner the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the same day had endorsed on the application that the Station House Officer will conduct spot inspection and get removed the encroachment from the public utility land and apprise the Sub Divisional Magistrate. At this juncture, the sole grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid endorsement made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the said encroachment has not been removed. 3. In this background, vide order dated 31.5.2016 the Court has proceeded to ask the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rasara, District Ballia, who has passed the order dated 18.6.2015 to file personal affidavit within three weeks to explain the circumstances under which the order was passed. The Sub Divisional Magistrate was also asked to appear before this Court. 4. In compliance of the directive so issued by this Court, personal affidavit has been filed by Shri Anil Chaturvedi, who is presently posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rasara. While filing the compliance affidavit the Sub Divisional Magistrate has proceeded to explain the circumstances under which the order dated 18.6.2015 was passed. It has been stated that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was also to the effect that if the respondents are encroaching upon the Gaon Sabha land, then immediately remove them. It has also been averred that the petitioner had proceeded to move a detailed application on 18.6.2015 wherein it has been alleged that the Gaon Sabha land was encroached by the private respondents and they raised certain construction. Considering the seriousness of the application and also keeping in view of the Government orders, answering respondent had proceeded to pass an order dated 18.6.2015 asking the Revenue Inspector and Station House Officer concerned to see, if there is any encroachment being made, then the same may be immediately removed and as such, there is no infirmity and illegality in the said order. 5. 5. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is a self contained Act and therein under Section 122-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "the Act of 1950"), a comprehensive procedure has been provided for wherein order of ejectment as well as damages can be imposed. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. - 9514 of 2014 (P.I.L.) (Ram Sijore Vs. State of U.P. & others) has already taken a view that in such a matters once a full fledged mechanism has been provided for to remedy the situation, then the said remedy should be invoked, as such, there is no occasion for this Court to permit the petitioner to by-pass the provisions, as is provided for under Section 122-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. 7. As on date the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 (U.P. Act No.VIII of 2012) (in short "the Code") has been enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature to consolidate and amend the law relating to land tenures and land revenue in the State of U.P. and which is holding the field, wherein full fledged mechanism has been provided for pursuing the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. Section 67 of the Code deals with power to prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat property. In Section 136 exhaustive procedure has been provided for, wherein order of ejectment as well as damages can be imposed, which is analogous provisions of Section 122-B of the Act of 1950 and in which it is provided that if the encroachment is on a public utility land, proceedings under Section 136 of the Code are available to be adopted. 8. Once full fledged mechanism has been provided for in the Code, in view of this, and as per the judgment of this Court in Ram Sijore (Supra), the petitioner should pursue his remedy as is available to him. The writ petition is disposed of.