LAWS(ALL)-2002-2-107

BANSDEO Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ADMINISTRATION

Decided On February 19, 2002
BANSDEO Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (ADMINISTRATION) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. R. C, Singh, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.2.2001 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration). Deoria.

(3.) The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition and supplementary-affidavit are ; the petitioner claims to be agricultural labourer. Land in dispute belonged to zamindar who settled the land with the petitioner's ancestors. Proceedings under Section 122B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated against the petitioner by issuing notice under Z.A. Form 49Ka. Reply of notice was submitted by the petitioner on 25th September, 1998 in which he claimed that petitioner is landless agricultural labourer. He further claimed that Plot No. 6 area 0.405 hectare is Banjar/Nadigandak Jn which the petitioner is in possession since consolidation. He further claimed that land will be treated to be settled with him under Section 123 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. An order was passed by Tahsildar on 2.2.2000 that petitioner belongs to Backward Class (Mallah) and is agricultural labourer, Notice under Z.A. Form 49Ka was discharged. A revision was filed by Gaon Sabha which revision was allowed by the order of Additional District Magistrate (Administration) dated 6.2.2001. The revisional court held that benefit of Section 122B (4F) can be given only to members of Scheduled Caste. It was held that possession of the petitioner is only for last one year and there is no evidence on the record that petitioner's possession is from the date of vesting. The revisional court allowed the revision, set-aside the order dated 2.2.2000 and directed the trial court to take proceedings for ejectment and realisation of damages against the petitioner. The said order dated 6.2.2001 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.