KALI CHARAN Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. C. Misra, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Judgments and Orders dated 19-9-1984 and 30-6-1984 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively by which the petitioners were declared to be in illegal possession and were to be dispossessed from the land in question and also to pay a sum of Rs. 24,675/- to the Gaon Sabha as damages.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that during consolidation proceedings in District Aligarh Tehsil Hathras the Gaon Sabha of village Lutsan as per the earlier decision of Land Management Committee (in short LMC) after due publication by beat of drum decided to allot plot No. 741/1 vested in it and left as bachat land being uneven and uncultivated. No one came forward to take this plot except the petitioners. THE said plot was allotted in their name and they invested money as alleged by the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and laboured hard to make it even and cultivable. THE LMC while allotting the plot imposed a condition that after the expiry of 10 years of period of cultivation the petitioners shall start paying Rs. 100/- per year to the Gaon Sabha. A Patta was granted on 10-4-1962 by the LMC exercising its power under Section 195 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short the Act ).

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Tehsildar, the petitioners filed a revision before the Additional Collector who too disposed off the same on 19-9-1984 upholding the order of the Tehsildar. BEING aggrieved by the order dated 30-6-1984 passed by the Tehsildar and the order dated 19-9-1984 passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act which are summary in nature and could be initiated against those persons only when their possession on the land in question was of a recent origin and without any right or title. That the question of deciding the bona fide right and title was beyond the scope of Section 122-B of the Act. In the present case a clear case of right and title became involved as in the previous proceedings of Suit No. 514 before the Court of law, it was held that the petitioners were not in illegal possession and the findings would act as res-judicata thereby debarring the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question by a subsequent summary proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act.