LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-160

BUDHAEE Vs. COLLECTOR FATEHPUR

Decided On April 19, 2005
Budhaee Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR FATEHPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 3 -1 -2005 passed in this writ petition it was observed that as pure question of law was involved in the writ petition hence there was no need to call for counter -affidavit on behalf of State and Gaon Sabha who are the only respondents in this writ petition. Through the said order the case was directed to be listed on 10 -1 -2005 for hearing. Thereafter the case was heard on 18 -1 -2005 and judgment was reserved. Neither on 3 -1 -2005 nor on 18 -1 -2005, learned Counsel for respondents requested for opportunity to file counter -affidavit.

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122 -B of U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act initiated by Gaon Sabha Sanwat Tehsil Khaga District Fatehpur against Budhai, the petitioner before Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Khaga District Fatehpur in the form of case No. 3780 of 2002. The allegation against the petitioner was that petitioner had encroached upon Gaon Sabha land comprised in plot No. 719 area .006 hectares (i.e. 55 to 64 Sq. meters). Tehsildar decided the case against the petitioner through judgment and order dated 30 -7 -2003. In the said judgment it was recorded that petitioner had constructed his house over the land in dispute which in the revenue record was entered as land reserved for basic school. Petitioner had stated that he was in possession of the land in dispute for about 40 years and had constructed his house thereupon. The period of possession as stated by the petitioner was notdisbelieved by the Tehsildar. In fact Tehsildar did not say anything regarding period of possession. The Tehsildar accordingly directed eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute and awarded damages of Rs. 3,000/ -. Against the said order petitioner filed a revision being revision No. 124 of 2003 -04. Collector, Fatehpur through judgment and order dated 1 -11 -2004 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

(3.) THERE was no evidence available on the records of the Courts below to show that actually any primary school was established over the remaining portion of the said plot or at the adjoining land.