Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 839 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shyamji Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
Proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act are stated to have been initiated against the petitioner on a report
of the Lekhpal being Case No. 226 of 2008. The same resulted in an order
against the petitioner for eviction from the land of the Gram Sabha as well as
for imposition of penalty for unauthorized occupation thereof to the tune of
Rs. 10,000/-. Petitioner made an application for recall of the said order on the
ground that the notice in form 49A was not served upon him and therefore,
the order was ex parte. This application was allowed by the Tehsildar vide
order dated 20th March, 2009 and earlier order was recalled after recording
that the same was passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The State Government not being satisfied with the order so passed
preferred a revision, which was numbered as 36 of 2009 before the Collector.
The Collector under the impugned order dated 24th December, 2009 has
allowed the revision. Hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Collector is
patently misconceived, inasmuch as he has not recorded any finding with
regard to the fact as to whether the order dated 2nd February, 2009 was ex
parte to the petitioner or not. He submits that infact the Collector should not
be interfere with the order of restoration and should have permitted the
proceedings to be decided afresh on merits. The Collector under the impugned
order has wrongly recorded that the unauthorized occupation of the land of
the Gram Sabha is admitted in the restoration application. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that such finding is based on misreading of the
restoration application, inasmuch as the petitioner had stated that there was no
unauthorized occupation and in the alternative if any portion of the land of
the Gram Sabha has been encroached upon, such encroachment had taken
place prior to the abolition of the Zamindari.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and having examined the records of the present writ petition, I am of
the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, the Collector
should not have interfered with the order of Tehsildar recalling his earlier
order dated 2nd February, 2009, inasmuch as a specific finding was recorded
that the case was wrongly proceeded ex parte to the petitioner. He should
have permitted the Tehsildar to decide the matter afresh after affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order of the Collector dated 24th
December, 2009 is hereby quashed and the order of the Tehsildar dated 20th
March, 2009 is restored. Let the case no. 226 of 2008 be decided by the
Tehsildar afresh preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy
of this order is filed before him.
The present writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made
above.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010
Sushil/-