LAWS(ALL)-1985-5-50

SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. A D M ADMINISTRATION

Decided On May 22, 1985
SUKHPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
A D M Administration Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the order dated 26th September, 1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner Meerut and the order dated 21st January, 1984 passed by the Naib -Tahsildar in a proceeding under Section 122 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was heard at great length and I have dismissed the writ petition summarily by order dated 23rd April, 1985. But before the order could be signed, learned Counsel, for the Petitioner placed reliance on Ram Diya v. Goan Samaj 1963 RD 34 a Single Judge decision of this Court. The learned Counsel insisted that this case may be considered and a reference may be made in the order. I am, therefore, giving this detailed order.

(2.) A notice under UP ZA Form 49 -ka was served en the Petitioner indicating that he has unlawfully occupied plot No. 318 area 0 -4 -0 (1600 sq. yard). It was alleged that the Petitioner has placed Kuri etc. without any right over the land and the land has actually vested in the Gaon Sabha. This notice was opposed by the Petitioner, who filed an objection alleging that it was not the Gaon Sabha land, rather he was using it for keeping Kuri and as using the land as Kolhu and the notice may be discharged.

(3.) IN Ram Diya v. Gram Samaj (supra) the Plaintiff was held to be Bhumidhar by the court below in the suit for injunction filed by the Plaintiff -Appellant against the Gaon Sabha with a prayer to restrain the Gaon Sabha from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff. But it was held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Section 7(aa) of the Act. On these facts it was held that as the Plaintiff was held to be Bhumidar and it was also found by the courts below that the Plaintiff was using the land in dispute for keeping Kuri and Kolhu, hence the Plaintiff -Appellant was held by this Court to be entitled to the benefit of Section 7(aa) of the Act. The statutory provisions of Section 7(aa) of the Act are set out below: