Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. It is admitted by the petitioner that plot no. 1299 vests in Gaon Sabha, of which, 71-6-0 Bigha was resumed by the State Government in 1983 and transferred to N.T.P.C.; thereafter, it transpires that petitioner encroached upon the resumed land. It is contended that as mandated by Section 131-A of the UPZA & LR Act, petitioner being in possession of a portion of plot no. 1299 prior to 30 June 1978, shall be deemed to have become tenure holder with non-transferable rights insofar it relates to the disputed property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Smt. Manju Agrawal vs. XIII A.D.J. Meerut & Others3, to contend that in a case where dispute of title of the land is involved, without deciding the title by the competent court, petitioner cannot be removed from the disputed land in summary proceeding. In other words, it is urged that in the given facts where arises bona fide dispute in respect of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government/Estate Officer is not competent to decide questions of title unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision taken under Act, 1971.

I have gone through the averments made in the petition, material brought on record, in particular, the impugned order with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 5-A of Act, 1971 vide notice dated 18 January 2005, calling upon the petitioner to remove the temporary construction situated in front of the main gate of the power station from the plot belonging to N.T.P.C. The encroachment is upon 3850 sq. feet shown by the boundaries, which is part of the impugned order. Petitioner filed objections contending that he is in possession over the land in dispute for the past 30-35 years prior to 1385 Fasli (1978). Further, it is urged that the property of the petitioner was acquired due to defective revenue record and possession thereof was taken, but no compensation was paid. In other words, petitioner admitted in his objection that the land over which he has raised temporary construction was resumed/acquired though he claims possession and bhumidhari rights in view of Section 131-A of UPZA & LR Act. Taking the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on face value appears to having merit but on deeper analysis it is devoid of merit.

Provided..."

In view of sub-section (6), State Government delegates power to resume all or any of the things specified from clauses (i) to (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 117, vested in Gaon Sabha and local authorities. The said order is transaction involving only two parties, namely, State Government and the Gaon Sabha concerned. No third party has any right or locus to object to the land. State Government, however, at the same time has no authority of law to issue any notification in respect of the land of which a person is owner inasmuch as the said land does not belong to the Gaon Sabha. The notification under Sub-section (6) of Section 117 of UPZA & LR Act, in the instant case, was issued on 3 December 1983. Had the petitioner been in possession over Gaon Sabha land on or before December 1983, the Land Management Committee would have initiated proceedings under Section 122-B of UPZA & LR Act by approaching the collector to remove the encroachment.

Section 131-A of UPZA & LR Act confers bhumidhari right on Gaon Sabha or State Government land in certain circumstances. The notification under Section 117(6) records that the land is being resumed for Rihand Super Thermal Power Project in district Mirzapur. It is further not being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that upon resumption, N.T.P.C. was duly entered in the revenue record over the land for the purpose of power station and they came in possession in 1983. Any person, including the petitioner, occupying the resumed land on the said date had no right or interest over the resumed property which vested with N.T.P.C. free from all encumbrances. Petitioner taking advantage of Section 131A of UPZA & LR Act, attempted, by setting up a case, contending that he is in possession of the land prior to June 1978. No material, including extracts of revenue record, was placed before the Estate Officer or before this Court to show that on April, 1987 upon enactment of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1987, or on the date of notification under Section 117(6) issued in December 1983, petitioner was having cultivatory possession of any land vesting in the Gaon Sabha. Even otherwise, on the date of insertion (15.04.1987) of Section 131A, the disputed parcel of land was no longer vesting in the Gaon Sabha, it was a property belonging to NTPC. Section 131A would not apply to the land not vesting in the Gaon Sabha on the date of its insertion. The purpose and purport of Section 131A is to confer bhumidhari rights on Gaon Sabha land and not on the land which were resumed and transferred to third party. The claim of the petitioner under Section 131A is misconceived, therefore, rejected.