BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.B. Trivedi for the petitioner and Sri Kamleshwar Singh for the contesting respondents as well as Standing Counsel for State of UP and Standing Counsel for Gaon Sabha. It is stated that by making forgery in the revenue records Plot Nos. 909, 1103, 147, 312, 1059 and 1101 names of the illegal occupants were recorded over it. On the basis of this forged entry they have occupied the land. Although the land in dispute is a State land and under the management of Gaon Sabha. Against the illegal encroachment a PIL has been filed registered as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 12404 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 14.3.2012 directing the writ petitioner to file an application/representation before the Assistant Collector who was directed to consider the same in accordance with the provisions contained in section 122B of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and decided the same. In pursuance of the aforesaid order an application has been filed before the Sub -Divisional Officer on 7.4.2012. When the application was filed, the Tehsildar submitted a report that as the names of the contesting respondents were recorded over the land in dispute and as the entry has not been corrected as such the proceeding under section 122 -B of the Act cannot be taken against them. Thereafter the matter was heard by Sub -Divisional Officer who by the order dated 31.1.2014 held that as the High Court in its order dated 14.3.2012 has directed to file an application/representation under section 122 -B of the Act and for the application under section 122 -B of the Act he was not competent Court as such the applicant was directed to file representation before the competent Court and the Tehsildar was directed to make an inquiry and in case it is found that any forgery in revenue records has been made, then he may take proceeding under the relevant provisions of law. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that the persons who have encroached the public land, is circumventing the provisions of law and misguiding the Courts below. On the application filed by the petitioner, the earlier Tehsildar has submitted a report as the entries in the record were in the name of the opposite parties therefore proceedings under section 122 -B of the Act could not be taken so long as the entry is not corrected. On such report the matter was placed before the Sub -Divisional Officer and he could have exercise the power under section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act to initiate the proceedings for correcting the revenue entry but he confined himself to the order of High Court and said that as the High Court has directed for proceeding under section 122B of the Act as such he was not the competent court. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court passed an order in a particular instance but it has in no way limited the statutory jurisdiction of Sub -Divisional Officer to correct the revenue record nor the effect of the order of the High Court is to bar the proceeding of section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act. In such circumstances, both the provisions ought to have been taken simultaneously. Inasmuch as proceeding under section 122 -B can be taken by Tehsildar and the proceeding under section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act can be taken by Sub -Divisional Officer.

(3.) IF required, the petitioner may file a fresh application under section 122 -B of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 before Tehsildar and under section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act before Sub -Divisional Officer within a period of ten days. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.