MEHARWAN Vs. COLLECTORS KANPUR DEHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Orders impugned herein having been passed on similar lines and proceedings in all the petitions having genesis in Section 122 B of the UPZA & LR Act, all the six petitions were knit together to be heard and decided by a composite orders. In all these cases, notices were issued to the respective petitioners in form 49 Ka of the UPZA & LR Act the quintessence of which is that the petitioners were in unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha property and they had wrongly constructed residential houses on a part of the same and further that they were liable to be evicted as well as to pay damages to the extent indicated in the orders. Objections were filed by each of the petitioners. By order-dated 28-6-2004, the Tahsildar passed an order for eviction of the petitioners from the land in question together with direction to pay damages. Revision preferred against the said order ended up in dismissal vide order of the District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners canvassed that each of the petitioners preferred objection claiming to be in actual possession prior to the date of vesting. It was argued that their residential houses have had their existence prior to the enforcement of the UPZA & LR. Act. It was further stated that Tahsildar who was vested with the power to pass the order did not apply his mind while passing the impugned orders dated 28-6-2004 inasmuch as complete non-application of mind is discernible from the order passed by Tahsildar. It was further argued that the authorities below had not recorded any evidence on any of the relevant points and orders impugned in the present are liable to be quashed.

(3.) SECTIONS 122-B (1) and (2) being germane to the controversy involved in this petition are referred to. From a punctilious reading of this Section, it is explicit that the authorities below are required to address themselves to certain questions of facts namely, (1) whether the property is vested under the provisions of this Act in Gaon Sabha or the Collector, (2) whether the property is damaged or misappropriated, (3) whether the Gaon Sabha or local authority is entitled to have or retain possession of any land under the provisions of this Act and (4) whether the land has been occupied otherwise than in accordance with law under the provisions of the Act.