Allahabad High Court
Vishnu Shankar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 February, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4572 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vishnu Shankar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Kishun Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.N. Pandey,D.D. Chauhan Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
In the meeting of the Land Management Committee held on 10.1.1010, the Gram Pradhan respondent no. 7 offered a part of the land of khasara no. 132 'Gha' area 0.0880 to the Gaon Sabha for the purposes of construction of a primary school in exchange of khasara no. 41 minjubula area 0.40 which was recorded as 'banjar'. Against the said resolution objections were filed on 12.1.2010 alleging that he is also a co-tenure holder of the aforesaid land of khasara no. 132 and unless his land is demarcated, the exchange offer cannot be accepted. The Up Zila Adhikari, vide order dated 12.1.2000, without considering the aforesaid objections approved the exchange offer as per the resolution of Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee dated 10.1.2010.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire proceedings have been done in great haste within a period of two days and in between inquiry etc. is also said to have been completed, though no such inquiry was done and not even the objections of the petitioners were dealt with which is mandatory in view of the Rule 146 of the Rules framed under the Act. He has further submitted that as the petitioners were not heard despite their objections before passing the impugned order, the alternative remedy would also not come in their way in maintaining the writ petition.
The manner in which the offer of exchange proposed of the respondent no. 7 has been accepted even though she is not the owner of the said land, cast a doubt about the genuineness of the entire transaction. The matter, therefore, requires consideration.
Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 &4, Sri D.D. Chauhan, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 4, and Sri T.N. Pandey, who appears for the respondent nos. 5, 7 & 8, are allowed a month's time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioners for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter.
Until further order of this Court, the operation of the order dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.
It is made clear that in case petitioners are found to be impostors as alleged by Sri T.N. Pandey, heavy costs shall be imposed upon them and appropriate proceedings for playing fraud upon the Court shall be initiated.
Let the petitioners be present in Court on the next date.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 RMY