JIV NANDAN Vs. COLLECTOR MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ peti ­tion is directed against the order passed by the Collector, Mau -respondent No. 1, whereby he allowed the revision and directed the Assistant Collector, respon ­dent No. 2, to decide the case afresh.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the Lekhpal submitted a report on 23 -4 -1994 before the Assistant Collector, respon ­dent No. 2 that the petitioner is in un ­authorised occupation over Plot No. 206 area 0.040 hectare of village Nathanpura, Pargana and Tehsil Ohosi, district Mau. The petitioner was thereafter given a notice dated 6 -8 -1994 in Z.A. form 49 as ­king him to show cause why he should not be evicted from the plot in dispute. The petitioner submitted an objection before respondent No. 2 that he was having his dwelling house over the land in dispute from much before coming into force of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short the Act) and his family members are living therein. He claimed that he was landless agriculturist. He was not in unauthorised occupation. The Lekhpal was examined by the Assis ­tant Collector. He stated that the petitioner was in possession but he has withdrawn his possession from the land in dispute. The Assistant Collector found that the statement of the Lekhpal was contrary to the report submitted by him and he discharged the notice by his order dated 17 -7 -1995. Poojan, respondent No. 3, preferred a revision before the Collector against the said order. Respondent No. 1 by order dated 17 -7 -1998 allowed the revision and directed respondent No. 2 to make further inquiry in the matter and find out the true position and determine the rights of the parties.

(3.) SUB -section (4 -A) of Section -122 -B of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Col ­lector under sub -section (3) or sub -section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 333. This provision does not confine the right. to file revision by the Land Management Committee alone against the order of the Assistant Collector. A person who is a Member of the Gaon Sabha can claim the right to use the land of the Gaon Sabha as it is a public property. If a person who is in unauthorised occupation of such land is not removed by the Gaon Sabha, a mem ­ber of the Gaon Sabha who has right to use the land of Gaon Sabha, can be said to be an aggrieved person. The proceedings under S. 122 -B of the Act can be initiated under sub -section (2) of the Act by the Assistant Collector on the basis of the information received under sub -section (1) of the Act or otherwise also. This indi ­cates that any person can inform the Assis ­tant Collector about the unauthorised oc ­cupation of the land by any person and if the Assistant Collector is prima facie satis ­fied that the property of the Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority is in unauthorised pos ­session of any person he can take proceed ­ing for his eviction. Respondent No. 3 was claiming that the land in dispute was reserved for removal of skin of dead animal and the members of the Gaon Sabha were entitled to use such land for that purpose. The revision filed by respon ­dent No. 3 in the facts and circumstances of the case was maintainable against the order of the Assistant Collector.