ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Srivastava and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned counsel Gaon Sabha for the respondent no.4. It is not necessary to issue any notice to the respondent no.5 at this stage in view of the facts that have been brought on record and the status of the proceedings which are under challenge.

(2.) THE petitioner was served with a notice under section 122 -B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 alleging encroachment over the land which was entered as a drainage. The petitioner filed his objection in the suit and led evidence in the shape of? a report said to have been obtained from the Nagar Palika Parishad as also a report of the Lekhpal concerned. The order was passed presuming encroachment by the petitioner even though the petitioner alleged that the constructions were raised after obtaining due permission and sanction of the competent authority. The petitioner urged that he has not encroached upon any land? that is? drainage and therefore the findings recorded in the order of the Tehsildar are without any basis.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for? the Gaon Sabha contends that it was open to the petitioner to have filed documents? in the proceedings that have been made the basis of the impugned order. The petitioner has not led any evidence in his favour. It is also urged that the fact that the land is recorded as drainage has not been disputed and in the circumstances no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order in the aforesaid circumstances.