JUDGMENT :

CRIMINAL MISC RECALL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2023

1. This is an application moved by State Counsel for recall of the order dated 24.4.2023 so far as it relates to appearance of Senior Superintendent of Police, Rampur before this Court on the next date along with personal affidavit explaining as to why the counter affidavit has not been filed till date.

2. It is contended by learned AGA that on the date when the said order was passed the file of the State was not traceable, whereas, the counter affidavit in the matter was ready and therefore the same could not be brought on record of the case. It is further submitted that the counter affidavit has now been filed in the matter, hence, learned AGA sought for exemption of appearance of SSP, concerned.

3. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in the matter.

4. The application is allowed. The personal appearance of SSP, Rampur is exempted.

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

5. Heard Ms Gunjan Jadwani, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

6. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicants for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 1053 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 1053 of 2020, under Sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur including the charge sheet and the summoning order.

7. In short, allegation against the applicants are that they were ploughing the agricultural land, which was declared surplus in ceiling proceedings. Applicants are said to have cultivated the crops standing on Khasra No. 123. For which an FIR vide Case Crime No. 0497 of 2019, under Section 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 has been filed, in which after investigation charge sheet has been filed, whereupon the applicants have been summoned.

8. Record discloses that the the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the predecessors of the applicants since 1338 (F) and since then they are in the cultivator possession of the land. Thereafter when it is revealed that the said land has been recorded as ceiling land and on the pretext of the said land, respondents started interfering with the possession of the applicants, as such they preferred writ petition before this Court being Writ C No. 35056 of 2010 (Kulvinder Singh and others Vs State of UP and others), wherein the order declaring the land of the applicants as ceiling land has been challenged and this court vide order dated 9.9.2010 directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the interim relief application filed along with suit, if filed, under Section 229 of the UPZA & LR Act or till the disposal of the application under Section 11(2) of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Against the said order, respondents approached the Apex Court by filing SLP CC No. 10765 of 2012, which has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 23.09.2013 and while dismissing the SLP, the Apex Court directed that the possession of the applicants and other co-teunre holders could not be interferred with till the dispute with regard to their ownership is not decided by the competent authority. Thereafter, on 5.11.2019, the Prescribed Authority, without considering the objection of the applicants and others and without taking note of the orders passed by this court treated the land of the applicants as surplus land in ceiling and even without giving any opportunity to remove the crop, proceeded to auction the crops. Against the said order appeal under Section 13(2) of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is filed and the order of the prescribed authority has been stayed and the appellate court also directed that no interference in sowing and harvesting the crop by the appellants will be made by the respondents vide its order dated 23.12.2019. Hence, the cultivator possess