JEET SINGH Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR ADMINISTRATION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The three petitioners were served with a notice for proceedings under Section 122-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act for illegally occupying the Gaon Sabha land. It was said that Jeet Singh, petitioner occupied 3 bigha 14 biswa, Dharam Singh alias Dharmi occupied 3 bigha 7 biswa and Shyam Singh, petitioner No. 3 occupied 4 bigha 6 biswa Gaon Sabha land without any proper allotment, they were treated to be trespassers of the Gaon Sabha land. The petitioners contested before the Tehsildar in proceedings taken against them. It was pleaded that they are landless agricultural labourers belonging to the Kewat alias Mallah caste. They also claimed to be in possession before 30th June, 1975. It was said that the petitioner were entitled to the benefit of Section (4-F) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, which is quoted below: " (4-F) Notwithstanding anything the foregoing sub-sections, where by agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in occupation of any land vested in Gaon Sabha under Section 117 got being land mentioned in Section (2) having occupied it from before June 30, 1975 and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said cote as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, does not exceed 1. 26 hectares (3. 125 hectares), then no action under this action shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the collector against such labourer, and shall be deemed that he has been admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of that land under Section 195". It was found by the Tehsildar at the petitioners do not belong I the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled be for extending the benefit under section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. The learned Tahsildar by the three Judgments, Annexures 1, 2 and 3, rejected eviction of the petitioners and awarded damages for Rs. 2290, 2390 and 2684, respectively, from the three petitioners with cost of the Ration.

(2.) HEARD Sri B. D. Madhyan at length and the learned Standing counsel. It has not been shown or own that Kewat alias Mallah are included in the list of Scheduled castes or Scheduled Tribes for ending the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. The revisional authority is Collector (Admn.) Meerut dismissed the three revisions with the aforesaid findings. I am of the view that the findings recorded by the two courts below that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act is correct and calls for no interference so far the findings are concerned and the order for eviction of the petitioners are concerned. The order for eviction of the petitioners is hereby affirmed. The petitioners shall be liable to be evicted in pursuance of the impugned orders.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the State of U. P. pointed out that before the trial court there was no submission on behalf of the petitioners nor the grounds stated in the writ petition was argued before the revisional authorities. Learned Standing Counsel is correct that perusal of the judgment do not show that these arguments were advanced. THEre was no occasion for arguing this question before the trial court. THE petitioners were not aware that they are surely liable to be evicted. As such, if such a plea was not argued before the trial court that may be a justifiable cause for the petitioners not to have raised such an argument. However, the question that this submission was not raised before the revisional authority. This is a pure legal question which whether raised or not can be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution. THE authorities are no to pass orders at their whims of issue any order when the law and rules are clear on the point. THE are bound to comply with the order of the superior authority. If they do not comply, it is the duty of the High Court to issue such observations for future guidelines. In these circumstances, when the revisional authority or the trial court both have failed to record and finding about the damages, which was required under the Rule, such amount of damages would be unwarranted and I am of the opinion that the amount of damages awarded cannot be sustained. THE amount damages awarded is hereby quashed THE writ is petition allowed to the extent. However, it is made clear the trial court may issue notice the petitioners for taking steps for assessment of the damages, according to the abovementioned rules and observations, made in this judgment