JAGDEV Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Bhakta for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents as also on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. However, no counsel is present for the Gaon Sabha when the matter is taken up by this Court.

(3.) THE ground taken is that the allotment was made in favour of the contesting respondent in 1994. The fact that possession was not handed over to the contesting respondents is also admitted in the counter affidavit where a copy of Dakhalnama had been filed which is dated 3.4.2003. A first information report was lodged that the petitioner failed to deliver the possession and in the first information report it is admitted that the possession was sought to be given on 3.4.2003. It was submitted by Sri R.C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid admitted position the contesting respondents could not be permitted to raise constructions after a lapse of nine years in view of the bar as contained in Rule 115-Q. It is not disputed that the contesting respondents are not scheduled caste and, therefore, the bar of three years would operate against them.