Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 14 December, 2022
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27595 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ranjeet Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kumar Abhay Singh,Kumar Vinay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 7, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha (respondent No. 8) and perused the record.
Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2022 (annexure No. 9) passed by the Additional Collector (Land-Revenue), Jaunpur in revision No. 4675 of 2021, under Section 122B (4A) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950 (in brevity, 'UPZA and LR Act').
Instant writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Section 122B of UPZA and LR Act wherein Tehsildar has passed an order dated 3.7.2000 (annexure No. 5) to evict the respondent No. 9 (Shiv Shankar Singh) from the plot in question i.e. plot No. 478 considering him as illegal occupier over the property of Gaon Sabha and also impose penalty to the tune of Rs. 775/- including Rs. 5 as execution fee against him. Having been aggrieved against the order dated 3.7.2000, respondent No. 9 has filed a revision under Section 122B (4A) of UPZA and LR Act which was allowed by learned Additional Collector (respondent No. 2) and the parties were relegated before Tehsildar to decide the matter afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 20.6.2022 reveals that revision has been allowed with an observation that order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the Tehsildar was an ex-parte order and no effective opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the adversely affected person (respondent No. 9), who is said to have encroached the property in question sans any legal right and title over there.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two fold submissions; first qua maintainability of revision filed on behalf of respondent No. 9 inasmuch as same of second revision, therefore, not maintainable in the eye of law and second; order dated 20.6.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 has been passed in defiance of the order dated 11.1.2022 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 32414 of 2021.
So far as the first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to maintainability of revision being second revision is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that against the order dated 3.7.2000 any other revision was filed except the revision No. 4675 of 2021, which has been decided by Additional Collector vide impugned order dated 20.6.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to give a reference of order dated 6.1.2000 by which earlier revisional court has issued some direction to Tehsildar for deciding the proceeding under Section 122B of UPZA and LR Act. From perusal of record, it reveals that the order dated 3.7.2000 was passed afresh in pursuance of the direction dated 6.1.2000, therefore, it cannot be said that instant revision, which has been decided by respondent No. 2 is a second revision filed on behalf of the respondent No. 9 assailing the order dated 3.7.2000.
So far as second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to defiance of order dated 11.1.2022 passed by this Court is concerned, the same is not convincing to this Court. The order dated 11.1.2022 passed by this Court (annexure No. 7) reveals that the Writ C No. 32414 of 2021 was filed for relief that state authorities may be directed to comply with the order dated 3.7.2000 on spot. Considering the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by Tehsildar final in the eye of law, this Court has issued a direction to the authority concerned, vide order dated 11.1.2022, to decide the representation to be moved by the petitioner (in Writ C No. 32414 of 2021) with respect to the eviction of the unauthorized occupant. At the time of order being passed by this Court dated 11.1.2022, nothing has been brought on record that order dated 3.7.2000 is under challenge before the court competent. It is apposite to mention that the order impugned dated 20.6.2022 has been passed in a proceeding under Section 122B (4A) of UPZA and LR Act quashing the order dated 3.7.2000, therefore, the order passed by this Court dated 11.1.2022 pale into insignificance and same cannot be enforced inasmuch as the basis of the order itself goes consequent to subsequent order dated 20.6.2022. Even otherwise, the present writ petition has been filed by a third person, who was not a party in proceeding under Section 122B of UPZA and LR Act. Nothing has been demonstrated at the part of the petitioner as to how he is prejudiced or is there any miscarriage of justice caused to him due to the remand order dated 20.6.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 in the revision filed on behalf of respondent No. 9.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate his submissions in assailing the impugned judgment dated 20.6.2022. No justifiable ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order dated 20.6.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 warranting the indulgence of this Court in exercise of it's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to the cost.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022 vinay