JUDGMENT
S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Dispute arises out of proceedings under Section 186 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
2. It transpires from the record that on the basis of some report the Lekhpal that the Bhumidhar is not traceable and who had abandoned the land in dispute which may be declared as abandoned land, proceeding under Section 186 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act was initiated and an ex parte order was passed declaring the land in dispute as abandoned land. On having knowledge, the Bhumindar filed an application to recall the ex parte order Evidence was led by the parties and Gram Pradhan also identified Gurbachan Singh as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Application to recall ex parte order was allowed and proceedings were dropped as required under Section 186 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the Second Appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue.
3. Heard Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned counsel petitioner Sri M.C. Joshi, learned counsel for Opp. Party No. 1, Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was allotted land in dispute after the order for abandonment was passed. He further urged that Gurubachan Singh @ Gurubban Singh are not the same person and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
5. In reply to the same Sri M.C. Joshi learned counsel for Opp. Party No. 1 urged that Opp. Party No. 1 still continuing as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute which was wrongly declared as abandoned and further urged that the ex parte order was rightly set aside on the application of the Bhumidhar and proceedings were rightly dropped.
6. Considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered materials on record.
7. The courts below found that Gurubachan Singh and Gurubban Singh are one and same person. On an application of the petitioner on the basis of an ex parte report of the Lekhpal by an ex parte order dated 15.1.1996 passed under section 186 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by which the land of Bhumidhar Gurubachan Singh was wrongly and illegally declared to have abandoned and vested in Gaon Sabha was rightly set aside by the order dated 19.9.1996 and it was rightly held that there was no abandonment and proceeding was rightly set aside. The findings recorded by the authorities below to the effect that Bhumidhar never abandoned the land and it never vested in Gaon Sabha do not suffer from any perversity or illegality apparent on the face of the record. It was rightly held that the land is still continuing with the Bhumidhar.
8. Section 186 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is relevant for consideration. It mentions certain conditions to be satisfied for vesting of land in Gaon Sabha on abandonment by a tenureholder. Section 186 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is being quoted below for ready reference:-
“186 Abandonment.- (1) Where a (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) (other than a minor, lunatic or idiot or asami has not used his holding for a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandary which includes pisciculture and poultry farming for two consecutive agricultural year (the Tahsildar may on the application of the (Gaon Sabha) or the landholder or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, issue a notice) to such bhumidhar with non-transferable rights’) or asami as the case may be to show cause why the holding be not treated as abandoned.
(2) The application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.
(3) If the Tahsildar finds that the application has been duly made he shall cause to be served on the (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) or the asami or publish in the manner prescribed a notice in the form to be prescribed requiring him to appear and show cause on a date to be fixed why the holding be not held as abandoned.
(4) If the (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) or the asami does not appear in answer to the notice, or appears but does not contest it, the Tahsildar shall declare the holding as abandoned and thereupon, except as provided in (Section 172) the holding shall be deemed to be vacant land.
Provided that no declaration under this Sub-section shall be made in respect of a holding or any part thereof, if the same has been mortgaged by the (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) under Sub-section (2) of Section 153 and the mortgage has not been fully redeemed, in which case the Tahsildar move the Collector for the realization of the loan in such manner as may be prescribed.
(5) If the (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) or asami appears to contest the notice the Tahsildar shall drop the proceedings.”
9. As on the findings of the courts below none of the ingredients of Section 186 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were satisfied in the present case, courts below rightly held that the land in dispute never vested in Gaon Sabha on abandonment. The ex pare report of the Lekhpal and the ex parte order passed by the Tehsildar were rightly set aside.
10. As land in dispute never Abandoned by the Bhumidhar and never vested in Gaon Sabha, entire allotment proceeding was without any authority in law and petitioner shall not get any right on the basis of such allotment of a land in dispute which never vested in Gaon Sabha. Petitioner has no right title or interest in the land in dispute. There is no illegality in the impugned orders.
11. Writ petition lacks merits and dismissed.