NURUDEEN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though petitioner has got absolutely no right to challenge the order Dt. 30.6.1986 passed in Reference No. 113 (Sant Ram v. Gram Sabha) by D.C.C. Gonda, after 27 years, however, it is quite evident that through order dated 30.6.1986 the then D.D.C., Gonda gifted the Gaon Sabha property to respondent No. 3 Sri Sant Ram. It is experience of the Court that during consolidation gaon Sabha/State property is openly looted and liberally donated by consolidation authorities to private persons. In this regard reference may be made to paras 22 to 27 of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Lajja Ram, : 2012 (116) RD 36 which are as follows:

(2.) IN Dina Nath v. State of U.P. I held that not making any efforts for getting the name of the petitioner entered in the revenue records on the basis of alleged patta by Gaon Sabha for 29 years proved that no patta was executed. I issued directions to all the Collectors to reopen all such cases where names of private persons were entered in the revenue records over Gaon Sabha land. Matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the form of S.L.P. (Civil) CC 4398 of 2010, Dim Nath v. State, 2009 (108) RD 321. The Supreme Court decided the matter on 29.3.2010 and quoted almost my entire judgment in inverted commas and approved the same.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , Collector Gonda is directed to immediately issue notice to respondent No. 3 Sant Ram S/o. Sita Ram, R/o. Village -Pipra Adai, Pargana -Boorha Payar, Tehsil -Mankapur, District -Gonda and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with the above authorities and if decision is taken in favour of the Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 3 must be forthwith evicted and damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per hectare per year shall also be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue and the property shall be entered as Gaon Sabha property. The entire exercise must positively be concluded within three months from today, failing which, Court will take a serious view of the matter. If the exercise is not completed within three months, petitioner may file recall application in this case. It is further held that petitioner has also got absolutely no concern with the property in dispute.