Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1913 (ALL)

Rammurat Yadav v. State of U. P.

2018-09-04

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and he was required to give a reply as to why his constructions over plots no. 44 and 45 be not demolished as they were constructed over pond and Bhita. When an order for the demolition of the constructions was passed on 17.3.2015, the petitioner filed an application for the recall of the order as it was passed ex parte. When the application was dismissed, he filed a Revision. Before the Revisional Court it was categorically stated that his construction was over Abadi which was numbered as plot 280/2 and after consolidation was numbered as plot no. 45-ka. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a demarcation took place of plots no. 44, 45-ka and 45-kha, then it would have been found out that the petitioner's constructions were over plot no. 45-kha which was an Abadi land. 4. Learned Standing Counsel and the counsel for the Gaon Sabha had no satisfactory reply to the submissions made by the petitioner that had plot no. 45-ka been demarcated then it would not have been confused with plot no. 45. 5. Under such circumstances, the Revisional order dated 7.7.2018 as well as orders dated 18.4.2018, 27.12.2016 and 17.3.2015 passed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Sadar, Varanasi in proceeding under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Sadar, Varanasi, who shall now after getting a proper demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 of plots no. 44, 45-Ka and 45-kha of Village-Tilmapur, Pargana-Katehar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Varanasi, readjudicate the matter. The proceeding shall be concluded within 90 days as has been provided under Rule-67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. 6. The writ petition is allowed.