Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 282 (ALL)

Raju v. State of U. P.

2020-01-24

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the Additional Collector, Hardoi, under section 65(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, rejecting the Appeal and also the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar (Judicial) Bilgram, District Hardoi in Case No. T20151033031557 under section 122-B of the Zamindari Abolition Act. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Area Lekhpal submitted an incorrect report on 25.3.2015 on the basis whereof the proceedings under section 122-B of the Act were initiated against him. The petitioner filed his objections to the show-cause notice saying that he had constructed his residential house 25 years ago on the said Gaon Sabha land and he is a landless labour having no other land in the village concerned. His objection was arbitrarily rejected despite the fact that petitioner himself gave his oral evidence and also produced one other witness in support of his claim that he was living in the village concerned for the past 25 years, and was in the occupation of the Gaon Sabha land since the very beginning. 3. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Lekhpal who had filed the report of illegal encroachment also appeared before the Tehsildar (Judicial) and in his statement admitted that he was posted as Lekhpal in the village concerned only for past three years and he has no knowledge whether the petitioner was in possession of the Gaon Sabha land since before 2007. Despite such admission by the Lekhpal, the Tehsildar (Judicial) passed the order dated 28.1.2016 saying that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 0.015 hectare of Gata No. 171 which was Gaon Sabha land and therefore, directed his ejectment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for the loss caused to the Gaon Sabha property. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed an Appeal under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Appeal has also been rejected without looking into the valid ground raised by him for setting aside the order passed by the Tehsildar. 4. It has also been submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Court i.e. the Additional Collector, Hardoi dated 7.4.2016 is also vitiated as it does not consider any evidence produced by the petitioner to show that he was living for the past 25 years on the same plot of land. 4. It has also been submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Court i.e. the Additional Collector, Hardoi dated 7.4.2016 is also vitiated as it does not consider any evidence produced by the petitioner to show that he was living for the past 25 years on the same plot of land. 5. This Court has perused the order dated 28.1.2016 and the order dated 7.4.2016. It is not disputed by the petitioner that Gata No. 171 has been recorded in the revenue records as 'Naveen Parti' land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. It has also not been disputed by the petitioner that he is in possession of 0.015 hectare of the said Gata and has raised his boundary wall and constructed a house thereon. The petitioner however failed to show that he was a resident of the village concerned for the past 25 years and has been in occupation of the land in question since before 2007 to be given the benefit of sub-section (4-F) of section 122-B. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has filed his Voter ID card as ID proof to the affidavit to the writ petition, which shows that it has been made out in the year 2003 and his address shown therein is Village Teriyabhavaneepur, P.S. Mallavaye, District Hardoi, which clearly shows that the petitioner was a resident of the village in question at least from 2003. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has pointed out that although the petitioner may be a resident of Village Teriyabhavaneepur since long, it would not mean that the petitioner was in possession of the Gaon Sabha land also since before 2007 i.e. at least from 2003. 8. It has also been pointed out by learned Standing Counsel that when the revenue records were examined by the Area Lekhpal who submitted his report on 25.3.2015 under Rule 115-C, Gata No. 171 was recorded as 'Naveen Parti'. It would mean that at least in 2015 or immediately before i.e. within three years thereof it was un-occupied land and that is why called 'Naveen Parti'. 9. Since the petitioner could not file any proof of his occupation of land of Gaon Sabha since before 2007 before the Tehsildar or before the Additional Collector, Hardoi, he has rightly been directed to remove his encroachment and to pay penalty of Rs. 9. Since the petitioner could not file any proof of his occupation of land of Gaon Sabha since before 2007 before the Tehsildar or before the Additional Collector, Hardoi, he has rightly been directed to remove his encroachment and to pay penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for the loss caused to the Gaon Sabha. 10. This Court having considered the rival submissions and also the order impugned, does not find any good ground to show interference as there is no factual or legal infirmity in the orders impugned. The petitioner having failed to produce evidence of his occupation of the land in question since before 2007, the orders challenged in this writ petition has been rightly passed. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. 12. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to apply for allotment of the vacant Gaon Sabha land as and when all other eligible landless labourers of the village are being considered and his case shall be considered independently of the orders passed earlier by the authorities and impugned in this writ petition.