Allahabad High Court
Yuvraj Ambarish Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 December, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41117 of 2019 Petitioner :- Yuvraj Ambarish Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kuldeep Singh Chauhan,Manoj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, holding brief of Sri M.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the record.
By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to evict the Non Z.A. land of pond known as Sagar Taal/Talab. The prayer no.2 is to restore the nature and use of Non Z.A. land of pond known as Sagar Taal/Talab.
We made a pointed query from the petitioner as to under what manner the nature of the Talab is going to be adversely affected when some development activities are being carried out and referred to some documents annexed on page 29-A of the paper book, he has referred to report of the Lekhpal and submits that the said Talab/Pond is being filled with earth/mud and such activity is still continuing that will ultimately change nature of Pond. Therefore, he submits that looking to the map which has been annexed on page 29, nature of the Pond is getting disturbed, however, document annexed on page 29-A appears to be some newspaper report and we fail to understand when work is going on the bank of Pond which is apparent from the photograph annexed with the petition what wrongful activity being undertaken by the Municipality.
Needless to say that the Municipality is in a better position to understand the utility of the Talab/Pond and carry out such activity in the public as it may deem necessary. From the pleadings as have come to be raised in the writ petition, we find that the petitioner has raised the dispute of title and we are unable to understand how land is recorded under Non Z.A when it is recorded in the old khatauni P.A II which is recorded Talab under the document of Nagar Palika, Jalesar. No pleading has come to be raised in the writ petition as to when U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has come to be enforced in the Municipality of Jalesar.
In our considered opinion U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has come to be enforced in the urban area and Zamindar has been abolished and, therefore, no right to the survivor of Zamindar can accrue qua Talab merely because in the Khewat prior to enforcement of said Act, there existed entry in the name of Zamindar.
In view of the above we decline to interfere and the writ petition is dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 16.12.2019
Gaurav