Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 779 (ALL)

SURESH CHANDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-04-02

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Advocate appears for the fifth respondent. 2. Petitioners are before this Court with the request to command the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioners over the land in Khata no.451 area 0.680 hectare, which is recorded as Banjar in revenue record, situated at Mauja-Nagla Ghoore, Block Bijauli, Tehsil Mant, District Mathura forthwith. Further prayer has been made to direct the District Magistrate, Mathura to take decision upon the application of the petitioners dated 14.12.2017 within stipulated period. 3. Record in question reflects that initially the proceedings under Section 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been initiated against the petitioners and the fourth respondent vide order dated 31.03.2004 has finalized the same in favour of the petitioners in terms U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 2002, which provides that eviction proceedings cannot be initiated against the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, who were in possession since 01.05.2002 and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners have been dropped and notice under Section 49 Ka was discharged. Record in question further reflects that subsequently, the respondent had tried to uproot the petitioners from the aforesaid banzar land and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners had filed proceedings under Section 122-B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and the same was registered as Case no.7/16-17. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, states that the respondent had not only tried to uproot the petitioner but they have also proceeded to lodge a criminal case under Section 3/4 P.D.P.P. Act. P.S. Math, District Mathura bearing Case Crime no.225/2017. The aforesaid matter was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. P.S. Math, District Mathura bearing Case Crime no.225/2017. The aforesaid matter was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 16735/2017 (Heera Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others) and consequently, the Division Bench of this Court has proceeded to pass stay order to the following effect:- "We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.225 of 2017, under Section 3/4 P.D.P.P. Act, Police Station Maat, District Mathura so far as it relates to the petitioners and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest them in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. It is contended that the plot number in respect whereof allegation of unauthorized occupation has been made in the first information report was subject matter of dispute in proceedings under section 115C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules and vide order dated 31.3.2004 benefit of the petitioner being a schedule caste was extended since he was in possession since Ist May, 2002 and the proceedings were dropped and notices under section 49Ka was discharged and on the same allegations the F.I.R. has been lodged. It is submitted that once the petitioner has been found entitled to be extended the benefit being a schedule caste, no offence can be said to be made out. Learned AGA opposed the petition. We have gone through the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R., which, prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, we are not inclined to interfere in the F.I.R. However, in view of the facts and the allegations made in the FIR, writ petition stands finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number till cogent and credible evidence is collected showing the complicity of the petitioners in the instant case or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, subject to their cooperation in the investigation, which will go on and shall be brought to a logical end." 5. In this backdrop, he submits that on the one hand the aforesaid proceeding under Section 122-B (4-F) is pending consideration and on the other hand the respondents have not permitted the petitioners to grow the crop and as such request has been made for restoration of possession. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection that the petitioners themselves have proceeded to move a suit under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and the same is pending consideration before the Court concerned and as such, no relief as has been prayed for should be accorded to the petitioner. 7. Considering the above and after perusal of the entire record in question, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the relief as has been sought for by means of present writ petition is concerned, the same cannot be accorded by this Court on the ground that the proceedings under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act has been initiated by the petitioner and the same is going on and in case any such relief is being sought for, the same can be very well be available to the petitioners before the authority concerned. 8. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the appropriate direction is liable to be issued to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mant, Mathura to expedite the aforesaid proceedings. 9. Learned Standing Counsel has not opposed the said prayer. 10. In view of the above, on consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of asking the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mant, Mathura to expedite the hearing of the proceedings under Section 122-B (4F) registered as Case no.7/16-17 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost not less than Rs. 500/-.