Allahabad High Court
Eidan vs Collector Deoria And 02 Others on 2 December, 2019
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39344 of 2019 Petitioner :- Eidan Respondent :- Collector Deoria And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tariq Maqbool Khan Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.
The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act drawn against the petitioner for his eviction from plot no. 1630 recorded as 'Rasta'.
The Tehsildar ordered eviction of the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2018 on the finding that the notice issued to the petitioner in form 49-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had been duly served. Despite such service, the petitioner failed to contest the proceedings. Since the encroachment was found over land of public utility, the order of eviction was passed.
Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision. In the revision, from a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner admitted his encroachment over land recorded as 'Rasta'. His case was that this revenue entry of 'Rasta' was incorrect. It therefore, stands admitted that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of land of rasta. In case, the revenue entry was incorrect, the petitioner should have instituted proceedings for its correction, but he did not avail this remedy.
The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the revisional stage, a report had been called for and relying upon the same, the revision has been dismissed.
On a pointed query by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no objection has been to this report as the petitioner was not aware that this report had been called for. This contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner has been contesting the revision and he claims to be unaware of the orders passed therein. Even otherwise, the revisional court has observed that the unauthorized possession is in the form of katrain, naant, khoonta, palani.
In view of what has been stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order that would warrant interference.
The writ petition is without substance and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.12.2019 Mayank