RAM KRIPAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha-respondent and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

(2.) At the very outset, learned State Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition. Elaborating his submission, he stated that earlier the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ-C No. 3221 of 2022 (Ram Kripal v. State of U.P. and others), which was finally disposed of vide order dtd. 2/6/2022. This Court after observing that "it is claimed that the College is owner of Gata Nos. 172 and 173, however, it has also used some public utility land recorded in the Khatauni for the purposes of playground under the control of Gaon Sabha for construction of some building" opined that the application submitted by the petitioner-Ram Kripal was not in accordance with law and thereafter taking note of the relevant provision of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 i.e. Sec. 101 Code of 2006, disposed of the petition, providing liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh application strictly in accordance with law. However, in the instant case, after the order of Division Bench, the petitioner/concerned i.e. College has not preferred any application under Sec. 101 of the Code of 2006, for the purposes of exchange of land. Thus, the present petition for the reliefs sought, is not maintainable. The order of Division Bench dtd. 2/6/2022 on reproduction reads as under :

(3.) Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 101 of the Rules is very clear. It provides that every such application shall be accompanied by certified copies of the Khatuani relating to the plots given as well as received in exchange, together with a copy of the resolution of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in favour of such exchange. When the Court peruses the application of the petitioner, Ram Kripal, apart from the fact that it is not in the name of the College, it finds; firstly that there is no plot mentioned therein which may have been offered for exchange, secondly it is not accompanied by any such resolution of the Land Management Committee which is in control of Gata No. 160.