RAM ACHAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shamsher Bahadur Singh for the petitioners , Standing Counsel for State, Sri Diwakar Singh for gaon sabha and Sri Parshuram Chaubey for respondent-6.

(2.) Earlier the proceeding has been taken against the petitioners under Sec. 122 B, on the report of Lekhpal showing that petitioners have encroached upon plot no. 331 of village Akodha, pargana Arail, distt. Allahabad. Later on Lekhpal submitted another report showing that the construction and possession of the petitioners were on plot no. 330 which was bhumidhari holding of the petitioners on which the proceeding had been dropped by Assistant Collector. Thereafter recall application was filed by Pradhan on which the order was recalled and the Assistant Collector had constituted a team of five Lekhpals and one Revenue Inspector for conducting fresh survey on the spot. The team of Revenue Inspector and five Lekhpals has conducted a fresh survey on 11.2013 and submitted its report in this respect. In the report it has been found that construction of the petitioners in the area of 56 sq. meters was on plot no. 331 and apart from it, the petitioners have occupied 40 sq. meters of plot no. 331 as their sahen land. The petitioners did not file any objection against survey report. Although they were given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, conducting the survey but no cross examination was made by the petitioners. Thereafter the Assistant Collector by the impugned order dated 10.1.2014 has directed for ejectment of the petitioners from an area 0.096 hectare on plot no. 331 and imposed fine of Rs. 5000.00. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in revision, which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 10.1.2017. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) A perusal of the order dated 10.1.2014 shows that the Assistant Collector relied upon the report of team constituted by him in which one Revenue Inspector and five Lekhpals were. There is no reason before this Court to disbelieve the survey conducted by the team and report submitted by them. Otherwise also it was a finding of fact and this Court , in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is unable to re-appreciate the evidence on record and take a contrary view.