RAM YASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Petitioner has come up with a fantastic case to the effect that on 20.11.1975, some patta was proposed to be granted to him by the Gaon Sabha of village Bhagwaria and the proposal was approved by the S.D.O. on 01.01.1976. He filed application for mutation on the basis of the said patta on 19.12.2007 (i.e. after 32 years) before Deputy Collector, Amethi. It is inconceivable that in case some patta had been executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1975-76, his name would not have been entered in the revenue records immediately. There is absolutely no explanation of silence of 32 years. It is very surprising that Tehsildar Amethi on 27 (or 28) June, 2008 passed mutation order in favour of petitioner. Copy of that order has not been annexed. Against the said order Suraj Prasad and others filed revision (Case No.10/22, Sarju Prasad (or Suraj Prasad Vs. Ram Yash) which was dismissed in default by C.R.O., Sultanpur on 13.10.2009. Not being aware of that, Suraj Prasad and four others filed writ petition against the petitioner complaining that he had usurped the Gaon Sabha property, which was numbered as Misc. Single No.2408 of 2010, Suraj Prasad and four others Vs. State of U.P. and others. It was disposed of on 28.04.2010 directing the Collector to dispose of the revision expeditiously. After passing of the order dated 28.04.2010 by this court, the C.R.O. through order dated 27.02.2013 set aside its earlier order dismissing the revision in default and fixed the date for hearing of the revision. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that in the earlier writ petition, review petition has been filed. Be that as it may, it is more than evident that petitioner has usurped the Gaon Sabha land comprised in Plot Nos.69 (new 38), 105 (new 64), 493 (new 176), 224 (new 333). It is impossible that if patta had been allotted in 1975, petitioner would have remained silent until 2007. In this regard, paras 22 to 27 of the judgment reported in U.P. Awas Evam Vkas Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Lajja Ram, 2012 3 AWC 2226 are quoted below: