Allahabad High Court
Satya Narayan Thru. Grandson Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Collector, Sultanpur ... on 5 November, 2020
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19341 of 2020 Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Thru. Grandson Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Collector, Sultanpur & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.4.2018.
This Court has perused the order impugned. It appears that petitioner was accused of encroachment over pubic utility land gata no.756 which is recorded as khaad ka gaddha/manure pit and bhithure situated at village Kaibha Pargana Meeranpur Tehsil Lambhua, Sultanpur. In 1987 the father of respondent no.3 and 4 instituted a suit under Section 198(4) of UPZA and LR Act registered as Case no.214 before the Additional District Judge/Additional Collector for cancellation of lease granted in favour of father of petitioner on public utility land. The Additional Collector by order dated 8.8.2005 ordered eviction of petitioner from land in question and the land was directed to be vested in Gaon Sabha. Petitioner file revision no.2611/03336/2010 under Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act in 2005. Revision was dismissed on 23.4.2008 and alleging that petitioner was not heard, the petitioner filed recall/review application on 19.5.2008 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.5.2012. It is the case of petitioner that he moved an application for recall of order dated 28.5.2012 on same day which was considered and said order was recalled. Now by impugned order dated 19.4.2018 the case has been dismissed without noting the arguments raised by counsel for petitioner.
This Court has perused the initial order passed by Additional Collector dated 8.8.2005. It appears that when complaint was made, an inspection was called and a show cause notice issued in 1987 itself wherein petitioner appeared and filed objection and it was stated that it was an old patta and complaint was filed with huge delay and barred by limitation. The Additional Collector however placed reliance upon report submitted by revenue official on 26.5.1987 and said that plot no.757 was lying vacant and to the east of said plot abadi of village in question was situated and to the south abadi of village Bhagatpur was situated. Adjacent to said abadi there were four manure pit, bhithure and certain trees were found thereon. The Halka Lekhpal's statement dated 17.2.1999 clearly established that land in question was public utility land which could not be given on lease. The lease was given on public utility land and not on fallow land of plot no.757, which till date remained parti. Taking into account the report of revenue official and statement of Area Lekhpal objection of the petitioner was rejected and an order dated 8.8.2005 was passed saying that patta for 11 biswa of plot no.756 and 6 biswa of plot no.757 has been granted wrongly and therefore, cancelled.
This Court has also perused the order dated 19.4.2018 where respondent no.2 has recorded the submission of revisionist and also the argument of his counsel. The order dated 19.4.2018 says that all these arguments were raised before same court which were considered by the court and order has been passed on 23.4.2008 and therefore there was no good ground to recall the said order.
This Court has also perused order dated 23.4.2008 rejecting the revision and from perusal of it, it has come out that the ground raised for cancellation of order passed by the SDM that the complaint was filed beyond limitation prescribed under Section 198(6) of UPZA and LR Act, has been duly considered. It was found that patta had been granted before 10.11.1980 and limitation for filing an application for cancellation of grant of lease as mentioned in Section 198(6) was 7 years and was upto 10.11.1987. The complaint was filed by the private respondents on 25.6.1986 and therefore it was held to be maintainable. In the complaint it was stated that knowledge of grant of patta was obtained by private respondents only on 7.12.1974. The revisional court found that the complaint was made within time and proceeding initiated within time and not time barred and complaint could be considered on its merit. The revisional court also considered merit of the case and found that plot no.756 and 757 were public utility land and that petitioner was not belonging to SC/ST Castes and hence ineligible. In view of Reserved Category residents of village being present they should have been considered on priority basis.
Having found no merit in the recall/review application the Additional Collector dismissed the same by order dated 23.4.2008.
This Court finds no good ground to show interference in writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.11.2020 Sachin