SATPAL Vs. COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARNAGAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 21.1.1987 arid 11.11.987.

(3.) In the proceedings under Sec. 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for short the Act, it appears that a notice on Form No. 49-A of the forms appended to the rules framed under the Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to deliver the possession over the plot No. 746/2 (measuring 2 Biswas) and to pay the damages. Petitioner on receipt of the said notice filed objection before the Assistant Collector denying the fact that he was in possession over the plot in dispute. It was on 16.6.1986 that the Assistant Collector after hearing the counsel for the parties dropped the proceedings holding that the petitioner was not in unauthorised possession over the plot in dispute. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.6.1986 a revision was filed by the Gaon Sabha before the Collector. On 21.1.1987 the learned counsel for the petitioner fell ill, consequently an application for adjournment of the case was filed. Said application was, however, rejected by the Collector and he proceeded to decide the case on merits. It was held that the petitioner admitted the possession over the land in dispute and therefore an order of ejectment was passed and an amount of Rs. 4,000.00 was imposed as damages which was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Collector for recalling the ex-parte order dated 21.1.1987. The said application was, however, rejected on 18.11.1987 holding that the application for adjournment of the case having been rejected the petitioner ought to have argued the case on merits and he cannot be said or held to be absent. The application filed by the petitioner was held to be not maintainable. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the validity of the orders passed by the Collector by means of the present petition.