RAMESH SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 5.2.2000 whereby the Tehsildar Chandpur District Bijnor held the possession of the petitioner to be unauthorised and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he may not be evicted for unlawful occupation of the land in question which belongs to Gaon Sabha and also for causing damages to the property.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was allotted the land in question by the Land Management Committee for a sum of Rs.900/- payable to the Gaon Sabha through receipt dated 20.4.1980. The petitioner constructed boundary wall, two rooms, tin shed besides a thatch over this land. He tethered his cattle and used to store cow dung cakes. He also kept his tractor-trolley, tiller and buggi etc. One room was used for storing chaff. The case of the petitioner further is that the Gram Pradhan and his employees are trying to forcibly evict the petitioner from the property to construct an office for Krishi Prasad in the north of the disputed land. The petitioner filed a suit no. 783 of 1992 which the respondents did not contest and, therefore, the decree became final between the parties. Thereafter the respondents again tried to forcibly evict the petitioner from the land in question and, therefore, the petitioner again filed another suit no. 28 of 1994, which was decreed on 12.12.1994. This suit was contested by the respondent-Gaon Sabha by filing its written statement, paper no. 47-A. In the written statement it was alleged that the Pradhan was the father of the petitioner and therefore, he could not have allotted the land in question to his son and even otherwise there was no resolution of the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha. It was alleged that the petitioner took advantage of the fact that his father was the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and took possession over the land in question. The trial court held that the plaintiff-petitioner was in possession over the land in question and that he had a receipt from the Land Management Committee in his favour but it also recorded a finding that the receipt was issued by his own father and beside the plaintiff-petitioner had not filed copy of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha and suit was ultimately dismissed.

(3.) Aggrieved the plaintiff-petitioner filed civil appeal no. 18 of 1997 (Ramesh Singh Vs. Babu Ram and others). The appellate court has recorded a clear cut finding that the appellant-petitioner was in possession over the land in question and this finding had not been challenged by the respondent-Gaon Sabha. It has also recorded a finding that receipt was issued by the Gaon Sabha in favour of the appellant-petitioner showing him to be a valid allottee of the land in question. However, the court held that as long as the appellant-petitioner had a valid allotment order in his favour he could not have been dispossessed from the land in question and he cannot be said to be a person who had encroached over the land of Gaon Sabha so far as the legal allotment certificate in his favour survives. On the question of damages the appellate court had held that the petitioner had failed to establish the extent of damage he had sustained and therefore, the relief to the extent of damage was rejected and the appeal of the appellant-petitioner was partly allowed. It was held that the appellant-petitioner cannot be evicted from the suit property otherwise than in accordance with law.