SHIV RAJS Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR SUPPLIES GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, respondent No. 1, allowing the revision filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the Lekhpal submitted a report on 5.8.1995 to the Tahsildar that the petitioners had encroached upon the land of the Gaon Sabha Dasna, District Ghaziabad. The Tahsildar/Assistant Collector. Ghaziabad took the proceedings under Section 122B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioners. He issued notice in Form 49A to the petitioners Indicating that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of plot Nos. 3298. 3299. 3300. 3301 and 3303 of the village in question. The petitioners filed objection. They stated that they are Jatav by caste and belong to scheduled caste. They have been in possession over the land in dispute prior to the year 1985 and have acquired Bhumidhori rights under Section 122B (4F) of the Act. Shyam Lal, petitioner No. 2, appeared as witness and produced Ram Das and Daya Ram in support of their version. On behalf of the State, the Lekhpal made statement. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 23.11.1995 held that the petitioners were in possession since prior to June 30, 1985 and they, being Scheduled Caste landless agricultural labourers, were entitled to the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the Act and dropped the proceedings.

(3.) On 29.12.1995 Raj Pal and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application before the Assistant Collector to recall the order dated 23.11.1995 alleging that they were in possession over plot Nos. 3301 and 3302. The petitioners were not parties in the proceedings which were taken against the petitioners and they have obtained order on 23.11.1995 whereby they have been granted the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the Act. This has materially prejudiced their rights. The petitioners filed objection to the said application. The Assistant Collector rejected the application vide his order dated 29.6.1996. They filed review application before the Assistant Collector against the order dated 29.6.1996 and also filed revision before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision filed by the respondents by the Impugned order dated 25.11.1997 holding that the contesting respondents were entitled to be heard. It was further held that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 122B (4F) of the Act.