Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 548 (ALL)

Mohd. Mustaquim v. State of U. P.

2016-02-16

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri D.D.Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha-respondent no.4. 3. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the order dated 26.11.2014 passed under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR Act as well as the order dated 3.7.2015 passed in revision. A notice has been issued to one Rais holding therein that over gata no.188 he has encroached the land to the extent of 0.018 hectare. The said gata is recorded as land covered under Section 132 of the Act. Against the notice, Rais-respondent no.5 did not appear and the order of eviction and recovery of compensation has been passed. 4. The petitioner then filed a revision stating therein that in fact the order is indirectly affected him and, therefore, proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act ought to have been initiated against the petitioner. The revisional court rejected the revision holding that no notice has been issued against the petitioner as he was not found to be in illegal possession over gata no.188. The notice has been issued upon respondent no.5, which happens to be the father of the petitioner and further the petitioner has not claimed possession over gata no.188 and, therefore, if the petitioner has not been found in illegal possession, no notice was required to be given and the revision at his hand could not be maintained as the proceedings under 122-B of the Act were initiated against respondent no.5 in which the petitioner was not a necessary party. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in fact the petitioner is going to be affected and, therefore, he ought to have been given liberty. 6. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner especially in view of the fact that the petitioner is not in illegal occupation over gata no.188 and 0.018 Hectare land, therefore, no notice was required to be given to him nor he was a necessary party in the proceeding but in case the authorities are interfering over the rightful possession of the petitioner without any authority or law, the petitioner could have filed a suit for injunction restraining them for interfering in his rightful possession. 7. 7. Since no notice has been given to the petitioner nor any proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the Act, the petitioner cannot approach this Court for quashing the said proceedings. 8. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.