RAJVANSI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 to 3 and 6, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, the Gaon Sabha as also Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

(2.) The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Sec. 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and is directed against the order dtd. 27/8/2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 3376 of 2024 (Rajvanshi and others v. State of U.P. and others) whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dtd. 24/7/2024 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh rejecting the appeal and upholding the order dtd. 26/5/2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sikandarpur, Ballia in proceedings under Sec. 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been upheld.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent No. 5, Veer Bahadur initiated proceedings under Sec. 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 with the allegation that he is the recorded Bhumidhar of Gata No. 632sa area 0.3840 hectare contained in Khata No. 145 and Gata No. 632 area 0.0400 hectare contained in Khata No. 148 of Mauja Firozpur, Pargana Sikanderpur Poorvi, District Ballia and that the petitioners have occupied the Bhumidhari land without title and have set up a tin shed and are residing there. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dtd. 19/4/2018 without hearing the petitioners passed an order directing the dispossession/ejectment of the petitioners from the Gatas in question. The petitioners assailed the order dtd. 19/4/2018 in revision before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh under Sec. 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was registered as Revision No. 603 of 2018. The revision was allowed vide order dtd. 26/10/2018 and matter was remanded to the SDO to decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. After remand the SDO passed the order dtd. 26/5/2022 allowing the case of the respondent No. 5 under Sec. 134 and directing the dispossession of the petitioners from the Gata Nos. 632sa area 0.384 hectare and Gata No. 632 area 0.040 hectares after recording the finding that Gata No. 632ka/801 area 0.081 hectare and Gata No. 632 kha/801 area 0.041 hectares allotted to the petitioners as agricultural land was cancelled under the order of the ADM (Finance and Revenue), Ballia in proceeding under Sec. 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act registered as Case No. 058/2003 dtd. 30/6/2006 with the further direction that the SDM undertakes fresh proceedings for allotment. The said order dtd. 30/6/2006 was carried in Revision No. 64 of 2005-2006 under Sec. 333 of the U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act. The Board of Revenue vide its order dtd. 11/7/2014 upheld the order dtd. 30/6/2006 however observed that if any land is left after construction of the road and culvert the petitioners shall not be evicted from such land. The SDO found that as per the report of the Joint Revenue Team and spot inspection the Gata No. 632ka/801 area 0.081 hectare and Gata No. 632 kha/801 area 0.040 total area 0.121 hectare had been utilized for construction of the road and culvert and the entire area allotted to the petitioners has been consumed in the construction of the road and culvert. The SDO further recorded the finding that the petitioners have illegally and unauthorizedly occupied the Gata No. 632sa area 0.384 hectare and Gata No. 632 area 0.040 hectare which area distinct Gatas belonging to the respondent No. 5 and accordingly directed for the dispossession of the petitioners. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dtd. 26/5/2022 under Sec. 207 of the Revenue Code has also been rejected by the Commissioner, Azamgarh, Division Azamgarh vide order dtd. 24/7/2024. The revision preferred by the petitioners under Sec. 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue has been dismissed in default in the absence of the counsel for the petitioners.