Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Prabhu Bal Shiksha Niketan - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ-C No. 30111 of 2019
Decided On: 21-10-2019
For the Appellant : Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondent: C.S.C. and Manoj Kumar Yadav
Headnote:
U.P. Land Revenue Act - section 33/39 – circumstances evidence – Illegal and arbitrary - without jurisdiction - facts of the case briefly stated are that in 1988 a resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha for allotment of plot Nos. 815 area 0.1980 hectare and 819 area 1.00 acre in favour of the petitioner, admittedly a registered society - It is also alleged that the resolution of the Gaon Sabha, which was passed on the ground that their existed no Educational Institution in the village was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 3.2.1989 and the petitioner was mutated – Held, We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years - In paragraph 20, the Apex Court has referred to misuse of the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to usurp Goan Sabha land either with the connivance of consolidation authorities or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Courts. Further, in paragraph 22 a direction for framing schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gaon Sabha property, so as to restore it in the name of the Gaon Sabha, has been issued – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the Gaon Sabha as also learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceeding of the case No. 3290 of 2017 (Lekhpal Report v. Prabhu Bal Shiksha Niketan Manager Ravindra Singh) under section 67 of the Revenue Court, 2006.
(ii) to issue the writ or direction directing the respondent to pay the damage cost of the School Building which was demolished by the respondent authority illegally without any procedure of law."
3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that in 1988 a resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha for allotment of plot Nos. 815 area 0.1980 hectare and 819 area 1.00 acre in favour of the petitioner, admittedly a registered society.
4. It is also alleged that the resolution of the Gaon Sabha, which was passed on the ground that their existed no Educational Institution in the village was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 3.2.1989 and the petitioner was mutated.
5. It appears that thereafter, in proceedings under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the name of the petitioner was ordered to be expunged, vide order dated 18.3.2010.
6. The petitioner went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Nayak-1st), Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back.
7. Upon remand, vide order dated 3.12.2011, the name of the petitioner was again ordered to be expunged.
8. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Nayak-1st), Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi on 12.12.2012.
9. The consequential Writ Petition No. 372 of 2013 filed by the petitioner was got dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 10.1.2013. The case of the petitioner is that the writ petition aforesaid was withdrawn on account of pendency of a civil suit, which is pending even today.
10. Thereafter, proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated against the petitioner, wherein the order has been passed for his eviction.
11. The eviction order has also been given effect to on the spot and the petitioner's institution situated over plot No. 815/2019 had been demolished. Hence, this writ petition for quashing of the proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the ground that they were without jurisdiction and not maintainable and also for damages.
12. In so far as the contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were not maintainable, it would be relevant to note that admittedly, name of the petitioner was ordered to be expunged from the land in question, which order has attained finality, upon withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders for expunging the name of the institution.
13. Although, it is submitted that this writ petition was withdrawn on account of pendency of the civil suit, which is pending even today, the same does not improve the case of the petitioner. In so far as the entry over the land recorded as an agricultural land is concerned, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.
14. The second contention that the land in question had been allotted to the petitioner as it was reserved for a Kanya Pathshala also cannot be accepted because there exists no provision under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, wherein the Gaon Sabha can allot a patta in favour of a registered society. On the pointed query by the Court, Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such provision. Even otherwise, it is settled law that any land which has been reserved for a school during consolidation operations, cannot be settled in favour of a private Educational Institution.
15. Under the circumstances, this Court is
