ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR BADAUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 3-5-1997 passed by the Assistant Collec tor, respondent No. 2 directing ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land and imposing damages to the tune of Rs. 2, 160 and further the order dated 5-12-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 dismiss ing the revision against aforesaid order.

(2.) THE proceedings were taken against the petitioner for ejectment from 121 sq. yards of land of plot No. 232 situated in village Saijana Mulsim, Par-gana Asadpur, Tahsil Ginnor, District Badaun. THE petitioner filed objection stating that the property is his ancestral property and his house is existing prior to enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short referred to as the Act ). THE parties led evidence. Respondent No. 2 recorded finding that the land in question was recorded as Abadi which was vested in Gaon Sabha. THE petitioner failed to prove that he was in possession prior to enforcement of the Act. He directed the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land and im posed damages to the tune of Rs. 2, 160. THE petitioner being aggrieved against said order filed revision. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision by the im pugned order dated 5-12-1997.

(3.) THE land which is not covered by any building or land appurtenant to such building, shall not be deemed to have been settled with the State Government. If any person occupies any portion of Abadi site subsequent to the date of vesting or makes construction on such land, he shall not be entitled to the benefit of Section 9 of the Act. It shall be treated as Abadi site and will be deemed to have been vested in Gaon Sabha as provided u/s. 117 of the Act. It has been found that the petitioner had no building on the date of vesting. He is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 9 of the Act. THE Gaon Sabha in these situations, was justified in taking proceed ings for ejectment against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the Act. In view of the above, the impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest error of law.