ABDUL RASHID Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the proceedings initiated against them under sections 186, 194 and 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in an attempt to oust the petitioners from their land in dispute. Since the facts and the law points involved in both the writ petitions are similar and hence both the writ petitions are being decided together.

(2.) THE facts of the case as averred in the writ petitions briefly are that the petitioners who are residents of village Sultanpur and village Gajeh Tala- phatabad in the district of Ghaziabad were landless agricultural labourers who were granted pattas in respect of land in dispute by the Land Management Committee in the year 1981 which were duly approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 30-3 1981. THE petitioners were put in possession over the land in dispute in April 1981 and continued to remain in possession over their respective land obtained in pursuance of the grant of lease in their favour and their names were also duly recorded in the revenue record as bhumidhars with nontransferable rights. THE petitioners continued in peaceful possession over the land in dispute and after investing good amount of money and labour, started growing good crops over it. Later on, proceedings were started for cancellation of pattas granted in favour of the petitioners and the Lekhpal was called upon to submit a report who vide his report dated 22-6-1985, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1, reported that the pattas were validly granted in favour of the petitioners and denied that they were not residents of the village and submitted the report that the names of the petitioners are duly recorded in the voters list and were residing in the village who were duly qualified to be granted the pattas. THE Collector, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2 was, however, determined to throw out the petitioners from the land in dispute and directed the Tehsildar, respondent No. 4 to start proceedings under section 186 of the Act, on the ground that the petitioners had abandoned the village and hence started proceedings for declaring the land as abandoned by the petitioners so that the land in dispute may be deemed vacant land and taken possession of in a summary and arbitrary manner. THE petitioners, however, did not receive any notice issued under section 186 of the Act nor came to know of any proceedings taken under section 186 or section 194 (a) of the Act for declaring the land in dispute to be abandoned by the petitioners in order to take possession of the same as vacant land, till the petitioners came across a news item published in the newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' dated 2-8-1986 that the petitioners' land was being declared as vacant. It was then that the petitioners came to know that some proceedings are going on to declare the petitioners' land vacant on the ground that the petitioners had abandoned the village and the land in dispute and all these proceedings were being taken behind the back of the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or giving any notice to them and since the petitioners apprehended that they would be thrown out and dispossessed from their land in dispute by respondents 2, 3 and 4 in a wholly arbitrary manner and against the principles of natural justice, the petitioners rushed to this Court and filed a writ petition No. 12441 of 1986, Abdul Rasheed and others v. State of U. P. and others which petition was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 4-9-1986 which runs as follows :

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.