VASUDEO SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is admitted that plot No. 2168 area 20 situated in village Jam Pargana Lakhaneshwar district Ballia was reserved for extension of abadi during consolidation proceedings. In 1972 proceedings under Section 48(3) were initiated and the Deputy Director after examining the report of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and after hearing Gaon Sabha allotted the plot to opposite party. The Petitioner was not party in this proceeding. On coming to know of the order he moved an application for review and claimed that entire proceedings were surreptitious. The opposite party made attempts twice under Section 20 and 42-A but 'ailed. He by concealing these facts and in collusion with Pradhan obtained the order behind his back. This application was rejected. In this petition both the orders of Deputy Director are impugned. It is urged that orders having been passed behind his back were without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel submitted that opposite parties having failed twice succeeded in securing order in his favour by concealing material facts. It is not necessary to decide all this as the learned Counsel for opposite party appears to be justified in submitting that this petition is not maintainable at the instance of Petitioner.

(2.) It being admitted that the land in dispute, was reserved for extension of abadi the right, title and interest of the tenure-holder extinguished and land stood vested in Gaon Sahba. If subsequently the Deputy Director after hearing Goan Sabha allotted this land to opposite party the person aggrieved was Gaon Sabha and not the Petitioner. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the Petitioner that land was situated in front of his house and he was using it as abadi and acquired easementary right over it. In any case if he would have been impleaded as party he could have also established his claim for it. None of the submissions have any merit in it. They proceed on assumption that land is abadi. This is not correct as it was land and it was reserved for extension of abadi The Petitioner could not claim any easementary right on it. Moreover acquisition of right by easement cannot be decided in this petition. The learned Counsel contended that as he was in possession he acquired possessory right and writ petition at instance of such a person is maintainable. The argument is misconceived as it cannot be disputed that a person in possession can acquire possessory right and such person can maintain petition but the question is whether Petitioner acquired rights or not. As observed earlier nobody has any right in the land after it was reserved for extension of abadi. The person interested was Gaon Sabha and if the Gaon Sabha agreed for its allotment to opposite party then Petitioner cannot make any grievance of it. The remedy of Petitioner was to file application before consolidation authorities that the land may not be reserved for abadi. In the end learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that in case this land is allotted in Chak of opposite party he shall have no remedy to challenge it before any appropriate authority. It is not necessary to decide this controversy as in case land is abadi or Petitioner has acquired any right of easement his remedy is to approach appropriate court. This petition is not maintainable as Petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved against the order passed by Deputy Director.

(3.) In the result this petition fails and is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.