High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raghuraj v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 23966 of 2007  RD-AH 8424 (4 May 2007)
Court No. 21.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1924 of 2007
Chandra Deo Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Heard Sri S.K. Vidhyarthy learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner claims that the land in dispute of plot No. 132A is recorded as 'Bheeta' ( the land which surround a pond as its embankment) and is necessary for its preservation, was settled with him as an abadi side under section 133 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Sri Rajendra Singh son of Sri Ram Nagina and Sri Arjun Singh son of Sri Rajendra Singh made an application that the order dated 21.5.2001 under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate be cancelled. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has allowed the application and has recalled the order of settlement.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision in the court of Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. The revision was dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.9.2006 on the ground that the land in dispute is recorded as 'Bheeta'. The revenue record shows the plot no. 132 as pond and plot no. 131 as 'Bheeta' and as public utility land it could not cannot be settled with any person. It was found that the land recorded as bheeta is a public utility land and cannot be subject to the proceedings under section 123 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In any case the revisional court found that at present only the earlier order under Section 123 of the Act has been recalled in which the Sub Divisional Officer has to hear the matter on merits. The Commissioner found that the revision is not maintainable at this stage.
This Court ordinarily does not interfere in the interlocutory orders. In any case, the Court finds it necessary to observe that in case the land is recorded as 'Bheeta' it can not be settled as abadi side with any person.
In Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi and others (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 496, held:-
"It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provide better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites."
The 'Bheeta' is the embankment of the pond and cannot be settled as side abadi. The Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to follow the law of the land in the judgment of the Supreme Court, make further inspection and find out that if the such land has been allotted, he may take steps to remove the entire construction and restore the pond and its surrounding area to be utilized by the villagers.
The writ petition is dismissed with these directions.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.