High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chhotey Lal Srivastava v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 66217 of 2006  RD-AH 20451 (2 December 2006)
Court No. 4
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66217 Of 2006.
Chhotey Lal Srivasvata ................Petitioner.
State of U.P. and others ........Respondents.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
The petitioner, Chhotey Lal Srivastava aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Collector dated 30th January, 2006 approached the revisional court by means of revision. The revisional Court vide order dated 11th July, 2006 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Thus, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition as emerged out of the narration in the writ petition and the impugned order are that the petitioner was served with a notice in Form-49 Ka of the Rules framed under the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (In short 'the Act') stating therein that the petitioner is in occupation of Chak road unauthorizedly therefore why he should not be evicted from the land in dispute and be not subjected to payment of damages. The petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid notice stating therein that the matter appears to have been arising out of a report submitted by the Lekhpal wherein he has stated that Plot No.104/2 area 0.220 hectare is in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner and petitioner has raised un-authorized construction over the said plot which is in fact the property belonging to the Gaon Sabha. This statement is not correct. On the basis of the aforesaid incorrect report a notice has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed objection and stated that he is not in occupation any of the portion of the Chak road or the land of the Gaon Sabha. On the other hand, one Navin Kumar Srivastava has constructed a house adjacent to the petitioner's land and in fact he has occupied the land of Chak road and notice has been issued at the initiation of Navin Kumar Srivastava. The Assistant Collector after perusing the material and evidence on record had made spot inspection and found on the spot that the land is unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner. The report submitted by the Tehsildar regarding measurement has been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by the order dated 16th March, 2005 which further confirms the spot inspection that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute. The petitioner relied upon a decision of the Civil Court which also certifies that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation. So far as the decision of the Civil court is concerned, the Assistant collector has held that
the decision of the Civil court is not binding in proceedings under Section 122-B of 'the Act', since on the basis of the material and evidence on record the Assistant Collector has found that in fact the petitioner has unauthorizedly occupied the land belonging to Gaon Sabha and has also raised construction and that the case set up by the petitioner that Naveen Kumar Srivastava as occupied the land in dispute is not correct, the Assistant Collector therefore held that the petitioner is liable for eviction and payment of damages plus execution charges. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision before the Collector. The Collector by the order dated 11th July, 2006 has found that the findings of the Assistant Collector cannot be said to be either perverse or not supported by material evidence. The revisional authority therefore affirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute it therefore, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding order of the Civil court is concerned, the Assistant Collector as well as the revisional authority has found that the order of the civil Court will not help the petitioner as on the spot on measurement he has been found to be in unauthorized possession therefore, he is liable to be evicted in proceedings under Section 122-B of 'the Act'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the same arguments before this Court as were advanced before the Assistant Collector and repeated before the revisional court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the Assistant Collector and affirmed by the revisional authority either are in any way perverse or suffer from any error much less error apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the decision of the Civil Court should not have been ignored by the subordinate authorities.
I find that the Assistant Collector made spot inspection on the basis of the report of the Lekhpal concerned which has been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and in fact found as is verified from the persons present on the spot that the petitioner has unauthorizedly occupied the land in dispute. In this view of the matter, ignorance of the order of the Civil Court in any way does not affect any of the right of the petitioner.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed as such.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.