Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.1983, the petitioner filed a revision, which was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 on 12.12.1983. It is slated that the petitioner got stay order from the revisional Court, therefore, the order of ejectment passed by the Tahsildar could not be given effect to. The petitioner has challenged these two orders and judgments by means of the present writ petition.

5. The grounds of attack are that in view of the admission made by the Lekhpal. the petitioner was given lease of the plot in question ; that the petitioner was given lease of the plot in question ; that the petitioner was an asami and proceeding under Section 122B of the aforesaid Act was without jurisdiction. It was also vehemently urged that the finding of the respondent No. 1, i.e., revisional court, that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant is against the evidence and it is based on the basis of the forged dakhalnama dated 21.2.1983 : that the petitioner has not signed the dakhalnama nor the respondents could take possession as slay order was operating against them by the revisional court and further that the possession of the agricultural holding cannot be taken in the mid-session of agricultural year when the crops were standing. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was an asami of gaon sabha his eviction can only be made through a suit under Section 202 of U. P. Zamlndari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and not in summary proceeding under Section 122B of the aforesaid Act. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner acquired rights under Section 122B (4) (F) of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner in support of his contention has filed documents along with the writ petition.

affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not member of the scheduled caste reply has been given in paragraph 13 of the rejoinder-affidavit to the effect that the petitioner is Kathera by caste and comes within the meaning of scheduled caste and as such is entitled to protection under Section 122B (4) (F) of the aforesaid Act.'

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the judgment and other documents available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner as stated above has urged that he was a lessee and became asami, therefore. proceedings under Section 122B of the Act was not maintainable and he could have agitated only on a suit under Section 202 of the aforesaid Act being filed by the Gaon Sabha. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being Kathera by caste which comes within the definition of scheduled caste. Therefore, as he was in possession prior to the appointed date and entry to this effect was made in the revenue records and possession proceeding was only after the order passed by the Tahsildar that too was a forged, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get benefit under Section 122 (2) (F) of the aforesaid Act.

(ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to get benefit of Section 122B (4) (F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

10. To appreciate these two points, it is necessary to see the relevant provisions of law. Section 122B is quoted herein below :

"122B. Power of the Land Management Committee and the Collector.--(1) Where any property vested under the provisions of the Act in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority is damaged or misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha or local authority is entitled to take or retain possession of any land under the provisions of this Act and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Land Management Committee or Local Authority, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed.

14. So far as the question of benefit of Section 122B (4) (F) is concerned as quoted above, the finding of the revislonal court Is that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner is member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribes. The petitioner has not filed any document to prove that caste Kathera is mentioned in the list of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. To get the benefit of the aforesaid section, it was necessary for the petitioner to prove that the requirement of Section 122B (4) (F) were there. Therefore, to my mind, there is no infirmity, illegality in the Judgment passed by the Tahsildar dated 9.2.1983 and that of the Additional Collector dated 12.12.1983.