Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1396 (ALL)

Bhupendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-11-26

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
ORDER : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Girish Chandra Sinha, learned Standing Counsel Shri Manjeet Shukla and Shri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party no. 4. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2020 by which the Financial and Administrative powers of the petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, has been ceased by the District Magistrate, Amethi, in purported compliance order passed by this Court on 20.12.2019 disposing of the Writ Petition No. 36033 (M/S) of 2019 (Prabha Chandra Tripathi @ Manish Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others) wherein this Court had directed the writ petitioner therein to file a complaint in accordance with the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, before the District Magistrate concerned who shall take appropriate action thereafter. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan of Village Semuhi in the year 2015 and took oath on 26.12.2015. The complainant was also a candidate in the Election and disgruntled with this has submitted a complaint to the District Magistrate on 19.11.2019 which was not being properly acted upon, therefore, he approached this Court alleging inaction on the part of the District Magistrate, Amethi. This Court disposed of the petition with a direction as mentioned hereinabove. In the garb of compliance of the order passed by this Court on 20.12.2011 a preliminary enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. The Enquiry report was submitted by the District Agriculture Officer. The petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice. Thereafter the petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice explaining that there was no irregularity in his possession over the land in question of Plot No. 513 which has been recorded in the Revenue Record as Parti Jadid i.e. the other vacant/non-agricultural land. The petitioner had constructed a house much before he was elected the Gram Pradhan over the land in question and had also let it out to the Bank by an Agreement dated 05.08.2015 much before he became Gram Pradhan. It was submitted by the petitioner that a lease was executed in his favour of the land in question by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gauriganj and he had also deposited the Fee/Premium for the same on 31.12.1992 in the Government Treasury in pursuance of such allotment. It was submitted by the petitioner that a lease was executed in his favour of the land in question by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gauriganj and he had also deposited the Fee/Premium for the same on 31.12.1992 in the Government Treasury in pursuance of such allotment. 4. It has been submitted that despite such explanation being given the District Magistrate did not consider the same on merits and has passed the order impugned saying that the petitioner had illegally occupied the land of Gram Sabha and raised construction over it and running a commercial establishment and taking rent for the same. 5. It has been orally submitted by the counsel for the petitioner Shri G.C. Sinha, that the District Magistrate is inimical to the petitioner as the petitioner had on an earlier occasion approached this Court alleging malafide against the District Magistrate, Amethi, and arraying him as a party in person in a writ petition challenging the order of removal of encroachment from Gaon Sabha land i.e. the same construction. This Court had interfered in the order in Writ Petition No. 15871 (M/B) of 2020 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and had directed the Collector, Amethi, to consider the interim relief application filed alongwith the Appeal pending before him under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code. The District Magistrate on receipt of the order passed by the Division Bench on 01.10.2020 had considered the said interim relief application of the petitioner in the Appeal and stayed the order of the Tehsildar and thereafter allowed the Appeal also by an order dated 14.10.2020 setting aside the order passed by the Tehsildar, Gauriganj dated 15.09.2020 directing the Tehsildar, Gauriganj, to take action on the report of the Registrar, Kanoongo dated 14.09.2020 afresh. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing another Writ Petition No. 19318 (M/S) of 2020 where this Court finding the orders of the District Magistrate irregular has stayed the proceedings initiated afresh in pursuance thereof. It has been submitted orally that the District Magistrate is annoyed with the petitioner and as a personnel axe to grind, therefore, the order impugned has been passed. 6. Shri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party no. It has been submitted orally that the District Magistrate is annoyed with the petitioner and as a personnel axe to grind, therefore, the order impugned has been passed. 6. Shri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party no. 4 says that in the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioner had concealed the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Class. This Court is not taking cognizance of the arguments made by Shri Vyas Narayan Shukla, as according to the law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ayyaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 (4) SCC 465 , the complainant has no locus to be heard in such matters. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand, has pointed out that none of these facts have been mentioned in the writ petition and has been only orally submitted. It has also been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the order impugned in this petition dated 06.09.2020 whereas the orders passed in writ petitions referred to by the counsel for the petitioner are of October, 2020. 8. This Court finds that even if there is only oral arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has specifically referred to two writ petitions filed by him and has also mentioned the orders passed therein. It appears that the District Magistrate is not annoyed with the petitioner infact he is hand in glove with the petitioner. Although there were complaints against the conduct of the Gram Pradhan, the District Magistrate did not act upon such complaint. When the complainant approached this Court and a direction was issued by this Court to take action under the 1997 Enquiry Rules, the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 95 (1) (g) without considering the explanation given by the petitioner in detail as is required under the Rules and has held by this Hon'ble Court in the Full Bench decision in Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The District Magistrate has passed an order which is a non-speaking order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and at the same time in the last sentence of the order impugned, has mentioned that he is disposing of the Representation of Prabhat Chandra Tripathi @ Manish Tiwari, the complainant. 9. State of U.P. and Others. The District Magistrate has passed an order which is a non-speaking order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and at the same time in the last sentence of the order impugned, has mentioned that he is disposing of the Representation of Prabhat Chandra Tripathi @ Manish Tiwari, the complainant. 9. The District Magistrate has not acted with full responsibility as is cast upon him under the Enquiry Rules of 1997 and the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and has in fact helped the petitioner by passing such orders leaving legal lacuna in it so that this Court may interfere and has passed orders either staying such order of the District Magistrate and the proceedings taken under Section 67 for removal of encroachment for Gaon Sabha land, or has been convinced that the order being illegally passed, is liable to be set aside. 10. The order impugned is set aside. The petition is finally disposed of. The District Magistrate shall pass afresh order within ten days from today considering in detail the reply to the Show Cause Notice submitted by the petitioner contained as Annexure-8 to the petition, strictly in accordance with law, take into account the fact that the writ petitioner was the Gram Pradhan of the village concerned in the past also and as a Chairman of Land Management Committee was duty bound to bring any encroachment on Gaon Sabha land to the notice of the Assistant Collector, First Class for taking action under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as originally framed, and amended, and later under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and to the Additional Chief Secretary (Appointment & Personnel) to look into the conduct of the District Magistrate, Amethi and seek an explanation from him. 12. This Court is flooded with unnecessary litigation because the Government Officers are not acting responsibly.