High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Panchu v. Collector - WRIT - C No. 7026 of 1987  RD-AH 2254 (30 January 2006)
Court no. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 7026 of 1987
Panchu vs. The Collector, Gorakhpur and another
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This petition has been filed against an order dated 31.8.1984 passed by the Tehsildar, Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur and against an order dated 8.1.1987 passed by the Collector-revisional authority in proceedings under section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.
The undisputed facts, as stated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was in use and occupation as landless Harijan of land measuring .02 acres of plot no. 288, which had been reserved as Harijan abadi during consolidation operation. An ex parte order was passed against him on 31.8.1984 declaring him to be a trespasser but nevertheless said that he was in possession of the said portion of the land by the impugned order dated 31.1.1984, he was directed to be evicted from the land and so he filed a revision against the said order. The revisional order was also passed against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, he was in occupation of Gaon Sabha land prior to 30.6.1985 and therefore the land stood vested in it at that time. The date of vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha under the section now is May Ist, 2002. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had been perfected his right over the said plots and could not have been ousted.
The contentions of the petitioner are not controverted by Gaon Sabha at all, which has not appeared in the matter despite giving notice in writing to the counsel for the Gaon Sabha and has also not cared to file any affidavit to controvert these facts.
Learned standing counsel is present and had assisted the court and has submitted that section 122-B (4-F) of the Act will come into play in the case of the petitioner and he is entitled to benefit of the same.
I therefore come to the conclusion that two impugned orders have been passed in violation of the provisions of section 122-B (4-F) of the Act and contained error, illegality and are therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. I quash the order dated 31.1.1984 and the order dated 8.1.1987. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from his land, except in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.