RAMADHAR Vs. TAHSILDAR COLLECTOR GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are present. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha respondent No. 3.

(2.) This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that a notice in Form 49-A under the Act was issued to the respondent No. 4 with regard to his unauthorized possession over Plot No. 713 admeasuring an area of 1 acre and 31 Decimal. In pursuance of the said notice a case Under Section 122-B of the Act was registered and in proceedings before the respondent No. 1 it was found that Bala Ram respondent No. 4 father of the petitioner against whom the said notice had been issued was not in possession or occupation of the plot in question, rather the petitioner was found to be in lawful and valid possession and occupation on the basis of a Patta of the said land granted in his favour by the Gaon Sabha on the basis of a resolution dated 16.7.1984 passed by the concerned Gaon Sabha respondent No. 3 in his favour, and after the execution of the lease the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record. Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 31.12.1987 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), after going through the record of the case quashed the notice under Section 49-A and sent a recommendation in favour of the petitioner to the Sub Divisional Officer to declare him as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights, and also to fix the land revenue of the said plot. It also held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the provisions laid down under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, as it stood on the date of proceedings and since the petitioner was not in possession and occupation over the land more than 4.67 acres no case could be instituted against the petitioner, neither the land in question had been reserved for public purpose and utility and the same was recorded as Banjar in Clause 5 of the Land Record Manual.