ZAITUNA Vs. COLLECTOR BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of State respondents. Sri Jai Kumar, learned Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of Gram Sabha - respondent no. 3. Proceedings under Sec. 122-B read with 115 (C) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act/Rules were decided in case no. 52/12/12/6 between petitioner and Gram Sabha vide order dated 17.10.2013. The Tehsildar while passing the order has though imposed a cost of Rs. 960.00 towards damages for occupying the Gram Sabha land for which recovery notice was directed to be issued in Form 49 (C), however, for removal of encroachment, no direction or order was passed against the petitioner on the ground of her long standing possession and regard being had to the decisions cited in the order itself. The order passed by the Tehisldar (Judicial) on 17.10.2013 was assailed by one Bechelal i.e. respondent no. 4 who was not a party in the said proceedings but had raised an objection on the strength of Sec. 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act to the effect that such a land belonging to Gram Sabha can not be settled in favour of the petitioner. Though the respondent no. 4 was not a party to the proceedings previously decided on 17.10.2013 yet an order was passed by the Tehsildar on 17.01.2014 whereby operation of order dated 17.10.2013 was stayed. The order passed by Tehsildar on 17.01.2014 at the instance of a non-party and staying recovery of a sum of Rs. 960.00 imposed on the petitioner was unwarranted but the same has come to be passed.

(2.) The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order dated 17.01.2014 filed a revision before the District Magistrate under Sec. 122-B (4) (A) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act but the revision so filed has been rejected by the means of the impugned order contained annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order dated 17.01.2014 has been passed without putting him to notice and at the instance of non-party having no right, therefore, the revision filed by him was liable to be entertained.