LALLAN UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

(2.) Heard Sri Amit Kumar Asthana, holding brief of Sri Jamil Ahmad Azmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr.S.B. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the staterespondent.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, he was granted fisheries lease on 8/9/1987 in respect to the pond, situated over plot Nos. 146, 149 and 179, which is alleged to be executed in favour of the petitionerw.e.f. 8/9/1987 to 8/9/1997 for a period of10 years. The Land Management Committee interfered with the right of the petitioner for fisheries, hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 38365 of 1995. This Court vide order dtd. 14/5/1995, directed the authority concerned, not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot with respect to his fisheries right. The petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate on 19/11/1997 and prayed for extension of the fisheries lease for a further period of 10 years. The Addl. District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) submitted a report dtd. 26/9/1997 and recommended for extending the fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 10 years. The petitioner alleged that he had deposited the requisite amount from time to time which was even accepted by the Land Management Committee without any objection and allowed the petitioner to carry out fisheries in the pond in question.Petitioner further alleged that the local person started interference in the fisheries right of the petitioner with respect to the pond in question, hence, petitioner filed an Original Suit No. 478/2016 for permanent injunction in which an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli on 24/11/2016. The interim injunction granted by the civil Court, according to the petitioner, is in operation, but a complaint was filed by one Mangla Upadhyay of the same village, accordingly, a report was submitted before the SubDivisional Officer that petitioner has made encroachment on the aforesaid plots in dispute which is recorded as pond in the revenue records. The proceeding for ejectment under Sec. 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No. 323/2022 (Computerized CaseNo. T202214180200323, State v. LallanUpadhyay). The SubDivisional Officer, Chakiya, Chandauli vide order dtd. 24/2/2022, passed an order for ejectment of the petitioner from plot Nos. 146, 149, 149kha as well as imposed damages of1,01,68,000/. The SubDivisional Officer has recorded a finding of fact that after enquiry, it has been found that no fisheries lease was executed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner is occupying the plot in question for the last 25 years which is recorded as pond. Against the order of the SubDivisional Officer dtd. 24/2/2022, petitioner filed Revision No. 612 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. AL2022141800612, Lallan Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and others), under Sec. 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue along with stay application. During the pendency of the aforementioned revision before the Board of Revenue, an order of attachment was issued by the SubDivisional Officer on 11/4/2022 as well as proclamation of sale under Sec. 184 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dtd. 5/5/2022. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the aforementioned proclamation, petitioner's property was sold in violation of Sec. 184(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The sale was made through auction and respondent No. 6 purchased the property which was attached in the aforementioned proceeding for Rs.35, 36,000.00on 4/6/2022. Against the order dtd. 4/6/2022, petitioner filed an application to set aside the sale under Sec. 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 171 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 along with stay application which has been numbered as Computerized Case No. C202214000001046 of 2022(Lallan Upadhyay v. S.D.M, Chakiya and others), Under Sec. 193 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with stay application. According to the petitioner, no interim order was granted in Revision No. 612/2022, hence petitioner filed Writ C No. 12706/2022 (Lallan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of vide order dtd.1/7/2022, directing the Board of Revenue to pass appropriate orders on the stay application of the petitioner within a period of 10 days. The Court has also directed that the order shall be passed in all the applications within a period of 3 weeks and till the passing of the order, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature, character and possession of the property in dispute. A direction was also issued for deciding the revision within a period of 6 weeks.