RAM ADHAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court through its order dated 11-2-1972 has ordered the petitioner to be evicted from the disputed land and he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 52/- as damages. Against the order of the trial court, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition, which was recommended to be allowed by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 29-3-1973. The revisional court through its order dated 14-10-1980 did not agree with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the proceeding under Rule 115-C against the petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ; hence it should be quashed. THE second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the disputed property did not vest in the Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ; hence the proceeding under Rule 115-C is bad in law. THE third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that notice in Form-49 was not correctly served upon the petitioner ; hence the proceeding stands vitiated in law and deserves to be quashed. THE last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the 'tahsildar' was not 'Collector'; hence the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner.

(3.) AS regards the second contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provision of section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and stressed that under that provision where property vested under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the Gaon Sabha or local authority only then proceeding could be initiated. He has only pointed out that the disputed land is a Navin Parti under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ; hence the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not attracted for the ejectment of the petitioner from such land. On my enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me as to what was the nature of the disputed land on 1st July, 1952. From a perusal of the impugned judgments, it does not appear that such a point was ever raised before the revenue courts. In the absence of necessary materials it is not proper to entertain this contention at this stage and I think that the petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up this point specially when it involves investigation into the question of facts. To my mind, the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner also fails in the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no legs to stand in view of the provision of section 29-C of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which reads as below ; 29-C. Vesting land contributed for public purposes-