High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nanhey Singh And Ors v. Addl. Collector Andors - WRIT - C No. 28730 of 1998  RD-AH 6715 (12 April 2007)
(Judgment reserved on 30.03.2007)
(Judgment delivered on 12.04.2007)
Civl Misc. Writ Petition No. 28730 of 1998
Nanhey Singh and others Vs. Additional Collector (Revenue and Finance) Muzaffarnagar and others
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Property in dispute is comprised in Plot No.121 area 0.072 hectares (720 squire meters) and Plot No.128, area 0.031 hectares (310 squire meters). In the revenue records, the property in dispute is entered as rasta and manure pits (Khad ke Gaddhe). Proceedings, under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, were initiated against the petitioners for their eviction from the property in dispute in the form of Case No.110 of 1996-97 on the file of Tahasildar/Assistant Collector, First Class, Tahsil Jansath, Muzaffarnagar. The allegation against the petitioners was that they had encroached upon Gaon Sabha Property in 1404 Fasli (01.07.1996 to 30.06.1995). The defence of the petitioners was that on 02.01.1963, property in dispute, old number of which was 198, was allotted to their ancestor Kusambari Lal through the then Pradhan. Receipt of payment of Rs.140/- in respect of the said allotment was also filed. Tahsildar dropped the proceedings after holding that the possession of the petitioners was with the consent of Land Management Committee. Lekhapal stated that neither rasta was in existence nor manure pits and in some part of the plot No.128, there was rasta. Tehsildar dropped the proceedings on 30.06.1997. Against the said order, Gaon Sabha filed Revision No.83 of 1996-97 along with Delay Condonation Application. Additional Collector, Finance and Revenue, Muzaffarnagar condoned the delay and allowed the revision through the order dated 29.06.1998. The collector directed that petitioners should be evicted from the property in dispute. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Collector dated 29.06.1998.
The Collector rightly held that receipt was not properly proved and it was highly doubtful as petitioners could not file any resolution of allotment passed by Gaon Sabha in their favour. It could also not be proved that any agenda was circulated or munadi was done for the allotment. The Collector held that in consolidation proceeding the land in dispute was ear-marked for manure pits and rasta and petitioners were not found in possession and that in case petitioners had any right in the property, then they should have raised the dispute during consolidation proceedings. Petitioners could not prove that they had made any constructions over the land in dispute. In revenue records, it was not mentioned that there was any Abadi in the plots in dispute. The statement of Lekhpal was, therefore, utterly erroneous and given only for the benefit of the petitioners. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Collector.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if allotment is not found to be perfectly valid still as petitioners are in possession since 1963 and their constructions are standing over the land in dispute hence instead of eviction, land may be settled with them on payment of reasonable damages, which they are ready to pay. Neither petitioners have been found to be in possession since 1963 nor any construction of the petitioners is standing over the land in dispute, hence this prayer cannot be considered.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.