Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARVESH GUPTA versus GAON SABHA PATWAI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sarvesh Gupta v. Gaon Sabha Patwai & Others - WRIT - C No. 27404 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12271 (18 July 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27404 of 2007

Sarvesh Gupta Vs. Gaon Sabha Kakrauwa, Tehsil Shahbad, District Rampur through its Pradhan and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Kumar learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned standing counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.04.2007 passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Tehsil Shahbad, Rampur in case No.5/10 of 2005-06 under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Gaon Sabha Vs. Sarvesh Gupta. Against the said order, petitioner filed revision No.11 of 2006-07. The Collector, Rampur through order dated 10.05.2007 dismissed the revision. Said order has also been challenged through this writ petition.

Trial Court held that petitioner had encroached upon an area of 73.3 squire yard comprised in Gaon Sabha plot No.222 and that during four years of his possession, he had caused loss of Rs.3335/- to the Gaon Sabha. Lekhpal appeared as witness of Gaon Sabha and stated that he had not seen the Gaon Sabha property register and that in Khasra of 1410 Fasli in Column No.18, the entire plot No.222 was mentioned as tehkhana. He further stated that on all the four sides of land in dispute there were old shops and that damages were ascertained at market rate and not circle rate. It is also mentioned in the order by the Trial Court that in spite of several opportunities, Gram Pradhan did not appear to give evidence.

Petitioner had pleaded that land in dispute was not Gaon Sabha Property. Ultimately, eviction of the petitioner from land in dispute was ordered, it was also directed that he should pay damages of Rs.3335/-.

It was also found that petitioner had made four pakka shops over the land in dispute.

I do not see any reason to disturb the findings of courts below in respect of land belonging to the Gaon Sabha.

However petitioner had contended that he was in possession since long. Length of possession was not determined by the courts below. I have held in Bhudaee Vs. Collecltor, Fatepur 2005 (98) RD 741 that in case some one has made constructions over a small portion of Gaon Sabha land and constructions are standing since long, then instead of demolition and eviction, proper relief to be granted to the Gaon Sabha is that of award of damages, which should be  equivalent to the market value of the land at the time of encroachment. For possession of period of four years, damages of Rs.33,351/- were asked for. Accordingly, in my opinion, the market value of the land in dispute admeasuring 73.3 squire yard must be around Rs.85,000/-. On 10.07.2007, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to intimate the Court as to whether petitioner was ready to pay Rs.85,000/-, in case Court felt inclined to settle the land in dispute in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed unconditional readiness and willingness to pay the said amount. Accordingly, it is directed that within six months from today, petitioner shall deposit Rs.85,000/- before Deputy Collector for being kept in Consolidated Gaon Fund constituted under Section 125-A, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. On the payment of aforesaid amount, the impugned orders shall stand set aside and land in dispute shall stand settled with the petitioner. However, if the said amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, then this writ petition shall be treated to have been dismissed.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Date:18.07.2007

NLY


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.