Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1773 (ALL)

Ranpal Singh v. State of U. P.

2018-08-10

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. 1. As the petitioner was in occupation over Plot No.697, area 250 square yard and it was alleged that he was wrongly in possession, proceedings for eviction were initiated but were dropped on 3.9.2014. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated again in the year 2017. To begin with, they were also dropped but thereafter on remand, by the order dated 10.10.2017, eviction was ordered. The Revisional Court also dismissed the Revision. Hence the instant writ petition. 2. The very fact, that earlier proceedings were initiated and were dropped after finding that the petitioner's possession was there on the plot in question, is indicative of the fact that the possession had been there since a very long time. Under section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (old Section 123), learned counsel submits the petitioner's possession could have been regularised. Since this aspect of the matter had not been considered, he submits that orders are erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that neither the provisions of section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (new section 67-A of the Code) had been considered nor had the fact been considered that earlier on 3.9.2014 the proceedings were dropped. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that the document dated 18.6.1968 had also not been denied. Therefore, he submits that definitely long standing possession cannot be denied. He further submits that since the aspect of his being in possession since a very long time had not been considered, the orders were erroneous. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply submits that as no proceeding was brought on record regarding the grant of Patta, it cannot be said that there was a valid Patta at all in favour of petitioner and, therefore, he should be evicted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that since the petitioner had claimed possession on account of the lease dated 18.6.1968 and further since earlier proceedings which were initiated, were dropped on 3.9.2014, it cannot be said that the petitioner had only recently occupied the land in question. 6. The orders dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Assistant Collector, District Bulandshahar and the order dated 14.6.2018 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Bulandshahar are, therefore, quashed. 6. The orders dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Assistant Collector, District Bulandshahar and the order dated 14.6.2018 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Bulandshahar are, therefore, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Tehsildar, who shall examine as to whether the document dated 18.6.1968 was actually executed. While examining this, he shall also examine the Pradhan and other persons who had signed the document and if it is found that the document was correct, it would be deemed that the petitioner was in possession since then. Further the Tehsildar shall also look into the provisions of section 123 (new section 67-A of the Code). If the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits which flow from the provisions of section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (new section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006), they shall be granted to him. 7. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is partly allowed.