JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali, J. act." id="1">1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional CSC for respondent - State. act." id="2">2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 27.07.2006 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision No.148 of 2005- 2006 under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act and judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by respondent No.3 in case No.25 of 2005-06 under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR Act contained as Anneuxre Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition. act." data-para-type="facts" id="3">3. Factual matrix of the case is that father of the petitioner namely late Babulal was owner of the house in suit prior to abolition of Zamindari and as per provision of Section 9 of UPZA&LR Act, 1950 the land in suit was settled with the house of the owner namely late Babulal - father of the petitioner and since then father of the petitioner was in continuous possession till his life and after the death of father of the petitioner the petitioner is in continuous possession over the house in suit. 4. On 05.02.1987, village of the petitioner comes under the limit of Lucknow Nagar Nigam. On 29.07.1994 a notice in ZA form 49-A was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3. On 21.08.1995 the petitioner filed his written statement before respondent No.3. On 14.03.2005 statement of P.W.-1 was recorded in connection to case No.25/28/05/06 under Section 122- B of UPZA&LR Act. 5. On 10.10.2005 statement of D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 was recorded before respondent No.3. On 12.04.2006 respondent No.3 passed the judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 in case No.25/05/06 against the petitioner under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR Act. act." data-para-type="facts" id="6">6. On 26.04.2006, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act before respondent No.2 against order dated 12.04.2006. Vide order dated 27.07.2006 respondent No.2 dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the finding returned by respondent No.3, hence present writ petition has been filed. 7. act." data-para-type="facts" id="6">6. On 26.04.2006, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act before respondent No.2 against order dated 12.04.2006. Vide order dated 27.07.2006 respondent No.2 dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the finding returned by respondent No.3, hence present writ petition has been filed. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the house is built prior to applicability of U.P. ZA & LR Act and in this regard the statement of Ram Khelawan was also taken into consideration but no finding has been returned on the statement given by Ram Khelawan and in a very cursory manner has come to the conclusion that there is no material or evidence on record to establish that the house is built prior to commencement of UPZA&LR Act. 8. His next submission is that the house is existing since long and in case by paying damages the same can be regularized. In support of his submission that instead eviction from the land in dispute, damages would be awarded to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon following judgments: (i) Manno Prasad v. Upper Collector (Prashasan), Kanpur Dehat and another reported in 2009(27) LCD 812 (ii) D.C.M. Limited v. The Collector, Ghaziabad and others reported in 2007(25)LCD 1194 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from infirmity or illegality and are just and valid orders. The petitioner could not establish his claim that the house under possession was built prior to commencement of UPZA & LR Act. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record as well as case-laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is admitted case of the parties in the writ petition that interim order was granted on 24.08.2006 in favour of the petitioner, which is extracted hereinbelow: "Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice for opposite party no. 1 and 3. Sri Jyotinjaya Verma appeared for opposite party No.4. Six week's time is allowed to file counter affidavit, two weeks for rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. In the meantime operation of impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2006 passed by opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed." 12. 1 and 3. Sri Jyotinjaya Verma appeared for opposite party No.4. Six week's time is allowed to file counter affidavit, two weeks for rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. In the meantime operation of impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2006 passed by opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed." 12. In pursuance to the above-extracted interim order, the petitioner is in possession on the land of the Gaon Sabha. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the the following judgment, operative portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: (i) Manno Prasad (supra):- "3. In proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, the evidence of the Lekhpal and other witnesses was taken and it was found that the constructions raised by the petitioner was an old one. The Tehsildar found that the petitioner was using the land for residential purposes and that the construction was an old one and consequently discharged the notice under Section 122-B of the Act. The Tehsildar, further directed that the Gaon Sabha may file a suit, if they are so advised. 5. The Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of the residents of the villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes and the allottees are permitted to raise houses for residential purposes. The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act also provides regularization of unauthorized occupants belong to Schedule Caste and other backward classes and also to those plersons belonging to the general category living below the poverty line under Section 123 of the Act. 7. In the present case, the undisputed fact which emerges from the perusal of the record is, that the land is recorded as Abadi land. The petitioner was using a small portion of the land approximately 95 square yards for residential purposes and that the constructions on this portion was an old one. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served, if the petitioner is evicted and subsequently the same land is allotted to another person for residential purposes. Interest of justice would be suffice, if the land is regularized in favour of the petitioner on the payment of damages. The Tehsildar in his notice had estimated the damages amounting to Rs.4700/- on the basis of the market value of the land in question at that moment of time." (ii) D.C.M. Limited (supra):- "5. Interest of justice would be suffice, if the land is regularized in favour of the petitioner on the payment of damages. The Tehsildar in his notice had estimated the damages amounting to Rs.4700/- on the basis of the market value of the land in question at that moment of time." (ii) D.C.M. Limited (supra):- "5. I have held in Bhudaee v. Collector, 2005 (98) RD 741 , that if some one is in authorized occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages. In the said authority, I have also held that if possession is since late seventies or early eighties then proper measure of damages is Rs.100/- per square yard as it approximate market value of the abadi land at that time of villages of U.P.. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the above principle can be applied to the instant case also. The possession is since 1964; the land was not situated in any abadi area; even for 20 years possession, damages claimed were Rs.5/- per square yard. In view of this, it appears that in 1964 the market value of the land in dispute was hardly Rs.10/- per square yard Accordingly, in my opinion interest of justice will best be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages @ Rs.300/- per square yard in lieu of settlement of the land in dispute with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for the payment of the aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages." 14. On perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is found that the Tehsildar found that the petitioner was using the land for residential purpose and that the construction was an old one. The Tehsildar directed that the Gaon Sabha may evict the petitioner. Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of the residents of the villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes and the allottees are permitted to raise houses for residential purpose. The Tehsildar directed that the Gaon Sabha may evict the petitioner. Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of the residents of the villagers and, from time to time, the Gaon Sabha allots the land for Abadi purposes and the allottees are permitted to raise houses for residential purpose. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act also provides regularization of unauthorized occupants belonging to Schedule Caste and other backward classes and also to those persons belong to the general category living below the poverty line under Section 123 of the Act. Instead of eviction, the authority could have awarded damages as an alternative relief in lieu of eviction, taking into consideration, the duration of occupancy on the land in question as well as considering the nature of the unauthorized occupation coupled with the are of the encroached portion. 15. It is also apparent from perusal of the aforesaid judgment that if some one is in authorized occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages. 16. In the present case, the petitioner is in possession over the land before commencement of UPZA& LR Act; on the said land he constructed his house; and is still living with his entire family members. Instead of eviction, proper remedy is to award damages and in view of the above, the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. order for damages and petition outcome." data-para-type="ratio_decidendi" id="17">17. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of settlement of land in dispute. order for damages and petition outcome." id="18">18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed for payment of aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages. order for damages and petition outcome." data-para-type="final_conclusion" id="19">19. order for damages and petition outcome." id="18">18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed for payment of aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages. order for damages and petition outcome." data-para-type="final_conclusion" id="19">19. Accordingly, it is directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- and on payment of the said amount, the land shall stand settled with the petitioner and the impugned orders dated 27.07.2006 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision No.148 of 2005- 2006 under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act and judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by respondent No.3 in case No.25 of 2005-06 under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR Act contained as Anneuxre Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition shall stand set aside. order for damages and petition outcome." data-para-type="final_conclusion" id="20">20. It is, however, made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the period stipulated by this Court, this order shall stand automatically vacated and the writ petition should be deemed to have been dismissed. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the Divisional Officer concerned for beking kept in consolidated Gaon fund constituted under Section 125-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 21. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. November 18, 2025 Adarsh K Singh (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench