FAROOK Vs. ADDIL. COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), AYODHYA DIVISION,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Aftab Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent as well as Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 as also Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Sec. 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is the Collector who is obligated to maintain the map, field book for each village and also maintain said record. It is submitted that the petitioner had moved an application before the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar indicating that the map relating plot No. 332 situated in village Patna, Mubarakpur, Pargana Birhar, Tehsil Alapur District Ambedkar Nagar needs to be corrected. It is urged that on the said application a report from the Naib-Tehsildar dtd. 3/1/2019 and another report by the Tehsildar Alapur dtd. 19/1/2019 was called for. The said reports clearly indicated that the plot No. 332 which was a 'pond' land has been shown to be less and plot Nos. 345, 346, 347, 348 and 348/889 is having a larger area. It is further submitted that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner who otherwise has no interest in plot No. 332 as it was a 'pond' land and that the petitioner himself was guilty of encroaching land and the Tehsildar Alapur had initiated proceedings under Sec. 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was decided against the petitioner on 1/8/2019. In another suit pending before Civil Judge, (J.D), Tanda bearing No. 355 of 2017 instituted by Ram Bahar against the petitioner wherein an interim order has been passed directing the defendants not to interfere in the land of the plaintiff of the suit namely Ram Bahar which related to plot No. 345 and because of the interim order the map correction could not be done. Moreover, the petitioner did not has any locus standi in so far as the plot No. 332 is concerned which is a pond land and in order to avoid any action against himself he has instituted the petition and in view thereof, the application of the petitioner was dismissed on 28/10/2022.

(3.) The petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner who also echoed the same sentiments as expressed by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar.