ANURAG PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ramesh Pundir, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, counsel for respondent No. 4Gram Sabha and Mr. Anurag Dubey, Counsel for respondent No. 5.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated at the complaint of respondent No. 5 filed on 21/7/2011 to record plot No. 297/0.87 Acre as pond, the same was registered as Case No. 5 of 201112 (Ashok Kumar v. State) under Setion33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act with respect to the plot No. 297/0.87 acre. Petitioner is claiming himself to be in possession of plot No. 297 since the time of his ancestor as such petitioner filed his implement application in the case under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. In the proceeding under Sec. 33/39 of U.P Land Revenue Act, two reports were submitted by revenue authorities to the effect that plot No. 297/0.87 acre is recorded as Navin Parti. Up Zila Adhikari without considering the report of Revenue Inspector passed the order dtd. 23/8/2012 to record the plot No. 297/0.87 acre as pond after expunging the entry of Navin Parti and ordered for ejectment of petitioner's father and their cosharer. Petitioner alleged that petitioner's implement application was decided after passing of final order dtd. 23/8/2012 in the back date. The order dtd. 23/8/2012 was challenged by petitioner in Revision before Commissioner under Sec. 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 21/7/2022 hence this writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Consolidation record reveals that plot in dispute was reserved as Abadi and report of Revenue Inspector reveal that plot in dispute is Navin Parti as such the impugned order passed for recording the plot in dispute as pond is wholly illegal. He further submitted that petitioner is in possession of plot in dispute since the time of their ancestor as such dispossession cannot be ordered in the proceeding under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act as such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction.