KAMAL Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. List of cases has been revised. No one appears for the Gaon Sabha. Proceedings under Sec. 122-B was initiated by the Gaon Sabha by issuance of a notice in form 49 in the year 1997, which resulted in passing of an order by the Tehsildar dated 19th July,1997 directing eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute and also imposed a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 as damages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a revision, which was also dismissed. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present writ petition. The impugned order of the Tehsildar indicates that the land is recorded as the land of the Gaon Sabha and that the petitioner had encroached upon the land and had raised unauthorised construction, and therefore, he was liable to be evicted and was also liable to be pay damages.

(2.) It transpires that the proceedings for eviction under Sec. 122-B was earlier initiated against the petitioner in the year 1980 with regard to the same Plot No. 543. The Tehsildar, in its order dated 30th Dec., 1980, rejected the claim of the Gaon Sabha on the ground that the plot was auctioned in favour of the father of the petitioner on 16.5.1966 and that the father of the petitioner came in possession and had constructed a house thereon. It has also come on record in these proceedings that the petitioner's father was a leprosy patient and the land which was auctioned in his favour was located outside the Gaon Sabha limits so that he could reside far away from the residents of the village. The said order of the Tehsildar was challenged by the Gaon Sabha in a revision before the Additional Commissioner, which also met the same fate. The Commissioner by its order dated 4th Jan., 1984 dismissed the revision giving a clear finding that the petitioner's father was validly given the land in the year 1966. It transpires that the territorial limits of Gaon Sabha was extended and the land in question came within the limits of the Gaon Sabha on the basis of which proceedings under Sec. 122-B was initiated which resulted in the eviction of the petitioner.

(3.) In spite of specific objections being raised, the authorities-below has not considered the earlier proceedings initiated by the Gaon Sabha, which were decided in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion, the Gaon Sabha was bound by the said decisions and could not initiate eviction proceedings under Sec. 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act on the same ground and for the same plot. The entire exercise initiated by the Gaon Sabha was a misuse of the process of the Court. The impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground that proceedings initiated by the Gaon Sabha was ex-facie illegal coupled with the fact that the earlier proceedings had become final inter se between the parties.