BASUDEO SINGH AND ORS. Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate of Azamgarh has made an order dated 30-1-1960 declaring the route of Tazia procession and directing that it shall be recorded in the Teohar register also. As a consequence of this order, a portion of the route travels over a piece of land which according to the Petitioners has been in their use from time immemorial and is also their sahan. As a matter of fact, the Petitioners claim that the land over which the disputed portion of the route lay was used by the Hindu residents of the locality for purpose of Janma Ashtami celebrations. By the present petition the Petitioners are impugning the said order of the District Magistrate which according to them is without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. It also, as has been claimed by them, infringed their fundamental right to the use of the property over which the route had been demarcated.

(2.) It appears that for some time past disputes have been occurring between Hindu and Muslim residents of the village concerning the use of the land over a portion of which the route has been demarcated. There was earlier a civil suit by the Muslim residents commenced Under Order 1, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure claiming that the said land was used by them for Taziadari and other connected ceremonies. The suit was opposed by the Hindu residents including the Petitioners who in turn set up that this land was always used by them for Janma Ashtami celebrations and was also intended for that purpose etc. This suit was dismissed by the Munsif, a fact not disputed by the Respondents. The result was that the claim of the Muslim residents that they used this land for purposes of Taziadari etc., was rejected.

(3.) Some further facts which also are necessary to be mentioned are that the portion of the land over which the route has been demarcated is situate in front of the Petitioners shop and is a narrow strip of land 4 feet or about wide. The Petitioners have claimed in their affidavit that the above land has been in their possession from time immemorial and they have been using it as their sahan. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have simply said in reply that they had no information about it. In the absence of any denial of the rights claimed by the Petitioners over this land, also having regard to its situation, there is no reason to reject their claim to it as their sahan.