Allahabad High Court
Sultan Khan vs Commissioner Bareilly Division & ... on 11 January, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69935 of 2009 Petitioner :- Sultan Khan Respondent :- Commissioner Bareilly Division & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Pathak,Rakesh Pathak Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Under the proceedings culminating in the order of the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 of the UPZA&LR Act, it has been directed that the term of the Asami Patta of the petitioner has expired, his name be deleted from the revenue records and that of Gram Sabha be recorded. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the provision which has been so introduced under Rule 176-A of UPZA&LR Rules, 1956 is prospective in nature and, therefore, will have no application qua the Asamis who have granted Patta prior to the said date. He further submitted that he is in continuous possession of the land even after expiry of the term of the Patta, therefore, the order impugned is illegal. I am of the considered opinion that both continuity of possession as well as nature of land are issues, which need examination of evidence. Petitioner may file a suit for declaration of his title or injunction under the provisions of the UPZA&LR Act. Writ is not the proper remedy. Writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made. Dated : 11.01.2010 VR/WP-69935/09