RAM PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 21.5.2019 passed by respondent no.3 Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar, Pratapgarh and the order dated 16.8.2019 passed by the Collector, Pratapgarh and pray for a mandamus to be issued to the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in question.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are recorded tenure holders of Plot no.197 having area of 0.519 hectare situated in Village Baijalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh which is in the shape of a grove and Plot nos.195 and 196 are adjacent to the said grove and are recorded as rasta in the revenue records. The father of the petitioners, namely, Surya Bali Singh and two others moved an application for correction of map regarding Plot no.197 under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in March, 1988 which case was decided and the application was allowed by the Chief Revenue Officer by an order dated 28.3.1989. Since the Gaon Sabha was being affected, proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated on the report of the Lekhpal dated 16.10.1987 regarding alleged encroachment over Plot nos. 195 and 196 and notice was issued to the father of the petitioners on 16.10.1987 but due to the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer on 28.3.1989 in favour of father of the petitioners, notice issued was withdrawn on 30.5.1989. The order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer dated 28.3.1989 was prayed to be recalled but the restoration application was rejected by the Chief Revenue Officer on 19.9.1995. The father of the respondent no.5 Santosh Kumar Singh represented by Sri Rama Shankar Dubey Advocate filed a revision against the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, which was allowed and the matter was remanded for consideration afresh on merits by an order dated 12.1.1998. The Chief Revenue Officer, Pratapgarh is still seized of the matter. In the meantime, respondent no.5 file a PIL before this Court, namely, PIL Civil No.37702 of 2018: Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court was informed by the respondent no.5 that despite directions having been issued by the concerned authorities to remove illegal encroachment over Gata nos.195 and 196, illegal encroachment of respondent no.4 i.e. petitioners herein over the plots in question continues. This Court disposed of the PIL by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the District Magistrate, which would be considered by the District Magistrate after summoning the records and also the report and if the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the plots in question were public utility land belonging to Gaon Sabha and the respondent no.4 therein i.e. the petitioners or any other person had illegally encroached upon the said lands, he would ensure that appropriate proceedings are drawn against them forthwith and are brought to its logical end.