Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 957 (ALL)

Chandra Bali v. State of U. P.

2016-03-16

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri O.P. Vishwakarma holding brief of Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. With respect to Plot No.69, area 2.5 decimal situate in Village-Kauwapar, Tehsil-Sadar, District: Jaunpur a notice 49-A was issued to the petitioner and proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, 1950 was initiated against the petitioner stating therein that he is in unauthorized occupation of the said plot which is recorded as "Grazing Land" in the revenue records which is a pubic utility land and, therefore, covered under Section 132 upon which no patta could have been granted. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the patta was granted in his favour by the erstwhile Zamindar on 17.5.1947 and since then he is in possession of the plot in question and has also raised a residential house in which he is living. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of grant of patta in 1947, the said land was recorded as "Banjar" and, therefore, there was no impediment in grant of patta and the petitioner is not in unauthorized occupation and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, 1950 are illegal and deserves to be quashed. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The question with regard to right of the petitioner over the land in question can be determined only after determination of evidence and examination of witnesses and their cross-examination also for which writ Court does not appear to be a proper forum. The petitioner has to get his rights adjudicated before the Court of competent jurisdiction by either seeking declaration or by filing a civil suit for the said purpose. However, since the petitioner is in possession since 1947 as claimed by him, it would be appropriate to protect the right of the petitioner over the land in question so that he is able to initiate proceedings for determination of his rights before appropriate Court. 7. Under these circumstances, for a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner either for recovery of damages or eviction of the petitioner from the property in question. 7. Under these circumstances, for a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner either for recovery of damages or eviction of the petitioner from the property in question. In case the petitioner files a suit and any order is passed, the impugned order shall be subject to the decision taken by the appropriate Court. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.