JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Sri Vishal Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Sri Bimla Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 1.12.2015 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Caste and Schedules Tribes Commission, Lucknow-respondent no. 3 and consequential notice dated 31.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Varanasi, copies of which are appended as Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition.

3. The facts in brief, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is the Bhumidhar of Plot No. 398/3 area 0.020 Hectare situated in Mauja Shivdaspur Pargana-Dehat Amanat, District Varanasi and is in possession over the aforesaid plot in question. The aforesaid plot was purchased by the petitioner from the erstwhile owner through a sale deed dated 21.11.1976. Subsequently, the petitioner constructed his house over plots no. 398/1 and 398/3 and the rest of the land was being used as Abadi.

4. The respondent no.4 viz. Ram Ji Das, also claiming himself to be the owner of aforesaid plot No. 398/1, area 278.3 Sq. Meter has filed an application under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. On the aforesaid application a case was registered as Case No. 15/17 of 2013 (Ramji Das Versus Ragho Prasad). In the said case the petitioner has also filed his objection and after hearing both the parties Addl. City Magistrate-I Varanasi found that over the disputed plot house of the petitioner is constructed and rest of the land is being used as Abadi by the petitioner.

5. Thereafter a suit being Case No. 73 of 2000 was filed by Ram Vilas against Ragho Prasad and several other persons in respect of Plot No.398/1 for the relief that respondents may be directed not to obstruct him from using of the plot as Rasta. The aforesaid suit was dismissed in default on 15.4.2011 and the said order has become final.

6. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also filed a suit being Case No. 4 of 2016 (Ragho Prasad Singh Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and another) for specific performance as well for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Hawaii Varanasi. In the aforesaid suit Shanti Devi, wife of Ram Vilas as well as Ram Ji Das (respondent no. 4) were made parties.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute of title is involved between the parties and till date respondent no. 4 is not able to prove his title before the competent court. It is further contended that when respondent no. 4 was not able to prove his title over the land in question, only in order to harass the petitioner, he filed an application in the shape of a complaint before the Commission for the SC and ST, Lucknow-respondent no. 3. On the said application notices were issued by the Commission to the Collector and the S.S.P. Varanasi for eviction of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by respondent no. 3, the respondent no.2-Deputy Collector Sadar, Varanasi issued notice to the petitioner for his eviction over the plot in question, i.e., Plot No.398/1. At this point of time, challenging the decision taken by the respondent no. 3- Commission for the SC and ST, Lucknow dated 1.12.2015 and the order passed therein by the respondent no. 2-Deputy Collector Sadar, Varanasi vide its letter dated 31.12.2015 the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents no. 3 and 2 have no jurisdiction to decide the title. It is further contended that the aforesaid respondents have absolutely no jurisdiction to pass any order to dispossess the petitioner. It is further contended that under Article 300-A of the Constitution protection of