Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 300 (ALL)

Shiv Pratap v. State of U. P.

2017-01-20

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus commanding respondents to return the money deposited by the petitioner in the Government treasury towards auction which was held on 11.11.2016. It appears that the crops standing in Gata No. 2254, 2258M and 2258, which is land of Gram Sabha, was given in the custody of the then Gram Pradhan. A first information report was lodged for dissipation of public property under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The crop was attached on 3rd November, 2016 and after getting valuation from the District Agriculture Officer, Mainpuri, auction was held on 11.11.2016. The petitioner had participated in the auction and deposited the auction money on 11.11.2016 to the tune of Rs. 31,750/-. The auction was confirmed on 11.11.2016 itself and possession of the auctioned crop has been handed over to the petitioner. On 13.11.2016, the petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Bhogaon, District Mainpuri stating therein that two miscreants namely Anil Kumar son of Anar Singh and Anar Singh son of Chhote Lal had cut away a portion of the crop illegally in the midnight of 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016. They have also made effort to damage the standing crop purchased by the petitioner. 3. The prayer made in the said application itself was to return the deposit of Rs. 31,750/- made by the petitioner in the Government treasury. It appears that a report dated 19.11.2016 has been submitted by the Lekhpal that Anar Singh son of Chhote Lal and Smt. Uma Singh wife of Anar Singh, whose names have been recorded in the revenue records and whose allotment has been cancelled by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra by order dated 8.6.2016, had unauthorizedly sown crop in the plots in question which was confiscated and sold in auction. On the complaint made by the petitioner auction purchaser regarding cutting away of the standing crop by these persons, the statements of the applicant/petitioner as also other villagers have been recorded whereby it was found that the standing crop was cut away by those persons who were in illegal possession of the land in question. On the complaint made by the petitioner auction purchaser regarding cutting away of the standing crop by these persons, the statements of the applicant/petitioner as also other villagers have been recorded whereby it was found that the standing crop was cut away by those persons who were in illegal possession of the land in question. It is noteworthy that the names of other villagers whose statements have been recorded by the Lekhpal have not been disclosed in the said report. It appears that the report dated 19.11.2016 has been submitted by the Lekhpal only on the statement made by the petitioner. 4. It appears that the dispute regarding cancellation of the allotment has been raised by the respondents who were alleged allottees of the land in question in a separate writ petition. 5. From the facts on record of the present petition, it is reflected that the possession after attachment of the standing crop on the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner though stated but could not be prove that the possession of the standing crop which was auctioned on 11.11.2016 could not be handed over to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to establish otherwise except that the standing crop was handed over on 11.11.2016 to the petitioner soon after the auction was confirmed. There is no averment in the complaint dated 13.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer which could even suggest that the possession of the attached crop was not handed over to him. 7. Though it is stated in paragraph 11' of the writ petition that the petitioner has approached the police authorities for the illegal act of the miscreants who had cut away the crop but nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same. Even the persons who allegedly had cut away the crop are not party in the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the letter dated 7.12.2016 written by him to the Collector, Mainpuri wherein only it is stated that the entire standing crop has been cut away by Anar Singh and Anil Kumar on 22.11.2016. However, it is not stated at any stage that any first information was lodged by the petitioner or he had approached the Superintendent of Police for making complaint for not lodging his first information report. However, it is not stated at any stage that any first information was lodged by the petitioner or he had approached the Superintendent of Police for making complaint for not lodging his first information report. Rather it is stated in the representation dated 7.12.2016 that the petitioner had approached the Sub-Divisional Officer and had informed him orally, the police reached the spot but no action was taken against those persons. The facts stated in the present writ petition to make out a case for return of the Government money cannot be believed. 9. In view of the above, no direction can be given to the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the claim of the petitioner for return of the Government money. However, it is open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding before a Court of law for establishing his case by leading evidence. In case, the petitioner approaches the Court concerned, the matter shall be decided on its merits without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed.