RAM NARESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri O.P. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar for respondent no.5. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice for respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri R.C. Upadhayay, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha for respondent no.4.

(2.) ALL the learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter be disposed of finally, at this stage itself, without waiting for any further affidavits as a legal question is involved on the basis of the facts that already emerge and are recorded in the impugned orders. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is claiming regularisation of unauthorized occupation over the disputed land in terms of Section 123 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The petitioner, admittedly, is of the Other Backward Class. Such benefits have been extended provided the possession is established in terms of the said section in relation to other backward classes who were introduced as a preferential category under the notification that was brought into force w.e.f 23.8.2004 through Amendment Act No.27 of 2004. In the present case, the order passed in favour of the petitioner granting such regularisation is prior to that date i.e. 31.7.2003.

(3.) THE restoration application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 11.10.2012 recording that the petitioner was not entitled or eligible to avail? such benefit over the disputed area of plot no.249. A further direction was issued to restore the land in the name of the Gaon Sabha and the order in favour of the petitioner of 2003 was set aside. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order on the ground that the restoration was time barred and without condoning the delay in correct prospective the same was allowed and even otherwise the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of such regularisation which aspect has been overlooked.