Heard Sri M. S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the re spondent No. 3 and Learned Standing Counsel.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-10-2001 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1.

3. Briefly stated, the proceeding under Section 122-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was initiated against the petitioner by the Assistant Collector/tehsildar Haridwar, District Haridwar by issuing a form as prescribed under Rule 49-A stating therein that the peti tioner is an unauthorized occupant of Gata No. 317/2 area 0. 123.

4. Objections have been filed by the petitioner denying the fact that he is in possession of 317/2 area 0. 123 hectare.

5. However, the petitioner has sub mitted that he is in possession of Khasra No. 316 and 284 min jumla. During the proceeding of the case, a reportwas submitted and the report of the Niab Tehsildar shows that no un authorized possession was found on Khasra No. 317/2. The report of the Niab Tehsildar shows as under:

Hindi

6. However, on the basis of the aforesaid report the Assistant Collector 1st Class vide his order dated 15th June, 2001 has quashed the notice Form No. 49-Ka and has found that the petitioner is in possession of Khasra No. 316 as well as Khasra No. 284, which has been given to him by the Irrigation Department. It was found that the pe titioner is not in possession of Plot No. 317/2.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was preferred before the Col lector. The Collector, however, vide his order dated 12th October, 2001 has al lowed the revision and directed the eviction of the petitioner. Although the Collector has recorded a finding to the following effect:

Hindi

8. In view of the aforesaid findings, since the Collector himself has ob served that no map has been prepared while the inspection was made and no measurement Talika has been prepared and against the

report of the Niab Tehsildar the objections filed by the Gaon Sabha have not been disposed of and as such there was no occasion for allowing the revision straight away but the revisional court should have re manded the matter to the Tehsildar for considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

9. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Talika was there and measurement was also there. The scope of revision is de fined in Clause (4-A) of Section 122-B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act.

10. Section 122-B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act provides as under:

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

(2) Where from the information re ceived under sub-section (1) or oth erwise, the Assistant Collector is sat isfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated or any person is in occupation of any land, referred to in that sub-section, in contraven tion of the provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to the person con cerned to show cause why compen sation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation as men tioned in such notice be not recov ered from him or, as the case may be, why he should not be evicted from such land.

(3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time not exceeding [thirty days] from the date of serv ice of such notice on such person, as the Assistant Collector may allow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document