Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Tehsildar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 6304 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2010 (7 February 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).


"Court No. 4"

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6304 of 2007.

Tehsildar Singh


State of Uttar Pradesh and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

This writ petition was heard by me on 7th February, 2007 and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the same was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later on.  Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Tehsildar Singh challenges the order passed by the revisional authority dated 20th January, 2007 and the order passed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar dated 19th December, 2006, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner to the notice issued in Form 49-K has been dismissed and the petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the land in question and further to pay the damages for un-authorize use and occupation of the Gaon Sabha land.  In reply to the notice 49-K, the petitioner has set up the case that the plot in question, namely plot no. 128, which has been recorded as Navin Parti in the revenue record over which the petitioner Thesildar Singh has un-unauthorizedly occupied and has raised a Pucca house and shop.  The petitioner's case is that the land in question was in fact allotted to petitioner's father and mother for constructing a residential house in the year 1970 by the Gaon Sabha by a lease and since then the petitioner is in possession and has constructed a house.  The petitioner has also filed a suit for declaration of his right, which is pending.  In this circumstance, it is prayed that till the disposal of the suit, the notice in Form 49-K should be withdrawn or the proceedings should at least be stayed.  In evidence the petitioner has filed an order in proceeding under Rule 115-P of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rule passed in case no. 93 dated 24th September, 2005-Tehsildar Singh Vs. Land Management Committee, wherein the Additional Collector has found on spot inspection that on the land in dispute the petitioner is in possession and the report given by the Lekhpal concerned to the contrary is incorrect.  The report relied upon by the petitioner purports to state that the petitioner is residing in part of the plot in question after constructing his house over it.  The petitioner also relied upon Khasra Gata No. 128/1, which relates to 1402, 1403, 1406, 1408 and 1409 Fasli, wherein in column no. 18 the plot in question has been mentioned as Navin Parti.  


By these materials, the petitioner wanted to establish his claim that the land is old Abadi, which as alleged by the petitioner has been settled in favour of petitioner's father and mother by the Gaon Sabha and after consolidation has been recorded as New 'Parti'.  The Assistant Collector/Tehsildar after considering the materials on record found that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the lease with regard to plot in question was executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of petitioner's father and mother in the year 1970 or any time thereafter.  Since the petitioner belongs to upper caste, neither he nor his father and mother are in the category to whom the lease of the land in question could be granted under Section 132 of 'the Act' and the alleged receipt of lease is in fact forged document and there is neither any material, nor any lease on the record, in this regard as alleged by the petitioner.  On the basis of these materials the Assistant Collector found that the petitioner has failed to prove his right over the land in question, it therefore directed eviction of the petitioner from the land in question and also held that he is liable to pay damages and assessed at Rs.20,000/-.  The Assistant Collector further held that in case the petitioner wants to rely upon the revenue entry, he can file a suit before the competent Court to get his rights adjudicated upon and thus rejected the petitioner's objection.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional Court.  Before the revisional Court the petitioner reiterated the same arguments as were advanced before the Assistant Collector.  The revisional Court found that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to the effect that the land in question is old Abadi of the petitioner and affirmed the findings arrived at by the Assistant Collector that the petitioner has unauthorizedly occupied the Gaon Sabha land from where he is liable to be evicted and is further liable to damages.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated same arguments as were advanced before the revisional Court.  Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner on the receipt purported to be receipt of lease, which the Assistant Collector as well as the revisional Court has considered and a categorical finding recorded that the said receipt is not in accordance with law and in the form prescribed no lease has been produced, nor any resolution of the Gaon Sabha was produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that the land in question was allotted to petitioner's father and mother.  Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Form 2-K prepared during the consolidation operation but petitioner has failed to produce any material which support the petitioner's case.  In these circumstances, this argument also does not help the petitioner's case.


In view of what has been stated above, I find no error in the orders impugned in this writ petition, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  This writ petition therefore is liable to dismissed and is hereby dismissed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

Dated: 07.02.2007.



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


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 |

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