Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 555 (UTT)

JAMEEL v. GAONSABHA DAUSANI, PARGANA, MANGLAUR

2017-10-24

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral) Apart from the fact that this Court though is deciding the controversy as pleaded by the parties to the petition but looking to the wider interest of the litigants, this Court issues a general directions to the State Government to invoke its power under Section 127 B of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for the purposes of appointment of Panel Lawyers of the Gaon Sabha for the reason, what has been experienced by this Court is that in most of the litigation by or against the Gaon Sabha they are not being decided because of lack of proper assistance and in particular due to the non availability of counsel for Gaon Sabha, who could protect their interest, and in particular the Revenue Department is absolutely oblivions of the fact that a proper assistance is required to be extended to the Courts in the cases in which Gaon Sabha has been made as a party. 2. The State Government through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Commissioner of both Kumau and Garhwal division are directed to constitute a Panel of Advocates to represent the interest of Gaon Sabha within a period of one month from today and report the same to the Registrar General of this Court, failing which an appropriate action shall be taken against them for not providing proper assistance in the dispensation of justice, which will amount to creating impediment in the process of dispensation of justice. 3. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the revisional courts order dated 27.08.2009 by virtue of which the revision preferred by the Gaon Sabha was allowed and consequent thereto the notice 49 ka dated 01.03.2004 imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for damaging the property of Gaon Sabha was affirmed. As a result of the affirmation of the notice 49 ka the petitioner had been directed to pay the damages for the loss which he has caused in the property lying in Khasra No. 107 having an area of 0.051 hectares by putting silt in it. During the course of the proceedings the petitioner's contention before the Court below was that what he wanted to express was that the notice which has been issued in relation to Khasra No. 107 as a matter of fact is not part of land on which his construction exists. During the course of the proceedings the petitioner's contention before the Court below was that what he wanted to express was that the notice which has been issued in relation to Khasra No. 107 as a matter of fact is not part of land on which his construction exists. This fact is refuted by the counsel for the respondent on the ground that land lying in Khasra No. 107 is recorded as Johar and the same has been damage by the petitioner by depositing since in it. And thus a damage of Rs. 50,000/- was directed to be imposed upon him by the notice dated 01.03.2004. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting reply to the notice 49 ka has submitted that the notice was bad because according to the statement recorded by the witnesses it is a land which is recorded as a manure pit and there is a massive contradiction amongst the statements of officials with regards to the nature of land. He further contended that there is no entry in any of the Revenue Records showing that petitioner is an unauthorized possession. The contention of the petitioner was that the construction of the petitioner which is existing is on his mool abadi, and not on Khasra No. 107. 5. On considering the objection preferred by the petitioner the Court of Tehsildar vide its order dated 30.05.2006 had quashed the notice. Against which the Gaon Sabha preferred a revision, the revision has been allowed and the quantum of damages which has been imposed of the petitioner is Rs. 1,000/- w.e.f. the date of alleged damages caused by him since 1411 fasli, and litigation expenses as Rs. 27/- has been imposed. 6. As far as the issue of unauthorized possession of the petitioner is concerned his case was that he has not encroached upon any part of land lying in Khasra No. 107 which is vested in Gaon Sabha and that his case was that Khasra No. 107 is not the land on which his abadi exist thus notice was bad. Abadi on which their exists a construction, be as it may while affirming the order of the Revisional Court dated 27.08.2009 imposing damages on the petitioner. Abadi on which their exists a construction, be as it may while affirming the order of the Revisional Court dated 27.08.2009 imposing damages on the petitioner. This Court leaves it open to the petitioner to get his rights adjudicate rights pertaining to his construction because the same cannot be decided in the summary proceedings under Section 122B. 7. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Revenue for necessary action. 8. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General is directed to send the copy of this order to the State Government for necessary compliance and action. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.