Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3531 (ALL)

Abhai Raj v. State of U. P.

2016-10-21

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Shri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the Gaon Sabha, respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, wherein the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from an area of 0.161 hectares of plot no. 936/3 on the ground that it is recorded in the revenue record as bheeta, which is land of public utility covered by Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, wherein no rights can accrue in favour of any person. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question is not bheeta. He submits that plot no. 936 is a very big plot having an area of 8.17 acres. An area of 0.60 hectares of this plot has been reserved for extension of abadi during consolidation operations, which have not concluded. This order of the Consolidation Officer was filed in the proceedings under Section 122B of the Act but has not been considered. The courts below have not recorded any finding that the land in question is bheeta. It has further been submitted that since a house had been constructed by the petitioner from before 02.06.1999, the same shall stand settled with him in accordance with provisions of Rule 68 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016. Lastly, it has been submitted that since plot in question is a very big plot and a portion whereof has been reserved for extension of abadi but no actual demarcation has been made on the spot, the impugned orders could not have been passed directing eviction of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the Gaon Sabha as also the State have supported the impugned orders. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In my considered opinion, the only point for consideration is whether the land in question, wherefrom the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted, is bheeta. The petitioner has denied this statement of fact in the impugned order, however, he has filed a copy of CH Form 2A as Annexure 2 to this writ petition. Its perusal reveals that plot no. 936/3 is recorded, therein, as bheeta. The petitioner has denied this statement of fact in the impugned order, however, he has filed a copy of CH Form 2A as Annexure 2 to this writ petition. Its perusal reveals that plot no. 936/3 is recorded, therein, as bheeta. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore, incorrect and contrary to the record filed by him. Bheeta is land of public utility covered by Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, wherein no rights can accrue in favour of any person. For this reason alone, the impugned orders cannot be faulted with and for the same reason, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of Rule 68 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016. Even the contention that a portion of this plot has been reserved for extension of abadi does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. Merely because the area, which has been reserved for extension of abadi has not been demarcated on the spot will also not result in conferring any rights in favour of the petitioner, over land, which is land covered by Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders call for no interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.