OM PRAKASH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 122-B of the UP ZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners were allotted the disputed land for the purposes of making constructions in the year 1964. On an application by Manbir Singh, opposite party no. 4 in the present writ petition, notice was issued to the petitioners on 9-11-1965 for their ejectment and damages on the allegations that they had illegally encroached upon the land of Gaon Sabha. It also appears that an application was moved by the opposite party no. 4 Manbir Singh for cancellation of the allotment of the disputed land to the petitioners on the ground that the allotment was illegal. On 5-6-1969 the allotment was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer. On 12-11-1969 the petitioners were ordered to be evicted and damages to the tune of Rs. 500/-were awarded against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector First Class, dated 12-11-1969 the petitioners preferred revision petitions which were recommended to be allowed partly as is evident from Annexure 2 attached with the writ petition. The revisional court through its judgment dated 24-2-1975 dismissed the revision petition. Now the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through my decision in writ petition no. 6341 of 1974. No doubt the revenue courts have jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 122-B of UP ZA and LR Act to remove the encroachment upon the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. The facts involved in the Uttam Singh v. Board of Revenue, Writ Petition No. 6341 of 1974 were quite dis-similar to the facts and circumstances involved in the present writ petition. In that case the position of the petitioner was that of a rank trespasser and he had made encroachment over the land of the Gaon Sabha by extending his constructions illegally. In the present case the petitioners were allotted the disputed land for the purposes of making constructions within the prescribed time and thereafter the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled in the year 1969. During the period when the licence was operative the petitioners made pucca constructions which are being sought to be removed in the proceedings under section 122-B of the UP ZA and LR Act. To my mind, the proceedings under section 122-B of the UP ZA and LR Act against the petitioners are wholly unwarranted and unjustified. On the date when the notice was issued to the petitioners in proceedings under section 122-B of the UP ZA and LR Act their possession was not illegal or unlawful. The allotment in favour of the petitioners was cancelled much after the initiation of proceedings under section 122-B of the UP ZA and LR Act against the petitioner. In the present case I have a feeling that the demolition of the petitioner's constructions cannot be done by the revenue courts in a summary proceedings. On the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, a bonafide question of title appears to have been raised by the petitioners. The order of ejectment by the trial court has been passed on 12-11-1969 and the allotment of land in favour of the petitioners was cancelled on 5-6-1969. Therefore, if a licensee has made constructions over the land of the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon Sabha wants possession over the land after cancellation of the allotment, I do not think that the Gaon Sabha should be permitted to take recourse to summary proceedings because in such a circumstance a bonafide question of title of the alleged trespassers would be involved. In my opinion, the Gaon Sabha cannot derive any benefit out of my decision in writ petition no. 6341 of 1974 which dealt with the case of a pure trespasser who had extended his Abadi illegally and thereby had encroached upon the land of Gaon Sabha.