The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an order for ejectment and damages has attained finality, and the party against whom the order was passed has not taken any steps to challenge the order or initiate permissible proceedings, the court may entertain a P.I.L. and direct the authorities to take action for the removal of encroachment.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. Neither anyone is present on behalf of respondent nos. 5 & 6 nor any request has been made on their behalf for adjournment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 198 (old no. 258), area 0.1780 hect. is recorded in the name of gaon sabha under Class 6-2 category land. Proceeding under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was initiated against respondent no. 5-Kedar Nath Yadav Inter College, Baghagara, Tahsil, Sadar, Gorakhpur (a private unaided intermediate college, under self-financed scheme). An order for ejectment and damages has been passed against respondent no. 5 in respect to 44 decimal area of plot no. 258 as well as damages of Rs. 11,91,040/- vide order dated 28.6.2001. Respondent no. 5 challenged the order dated 28.6.2001 by way of Revision No. 73 before the Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2001. Against orders dated 28.6.2001 and 23.11.2001, respondent no. 5 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40820 of 2001 before this Court which was initially entertained in respect to damages part only but subsequently writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2014. In paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that order dated 23.1.2014, dismissing the writ petition filed by respondent no. 5, has attained finality. Petitioner made a complaint before the authorities for the removal of encroachment over the plot in dispute in pursuance of the final order passed in the proceeding under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act but no substantial steps have been taken by the authorities, hence, the instant P.I.L. on behalf of the petitioner for removal of encroachment made by respondent no. 5 over plot no. 198, area 0.1780 hect. as well as for recovery of amount of damages awarded against respondent no. 5 vide order dated 28.6.2001 in the proceeding under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In paragraph nos. 3 & 4 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that petitioner is a social worker and has been doing several activity for the welfare and development of the village as well as to protect the public property land from grabbing.

3. This Court has entertained the matter on 12.4.2018 and had directed that if gaon sabha's land is restored to its original shape, then it also becomes the responsibility of the authorities to see that the school gets a place for functioning so that the local children do not suffer. Vide subsequent orders dated 19.4.2018/30.4.2018, this Court had further directed for removal of illegal and unauthorized occupation from the gaon sabha's land and the Chief Secretary of the State was required to come up with a scheme as has been provided in paragraph no. 22 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2011 (113) RD 689 (SC) but no scheme has been produced before this Court in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 19.4.2018/30.4.2018.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported in Jagat Narain and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (127) RD 615 and Baba Sukkhu Maa Prabhudevi Inter College and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2020 (146) RD 216 in order to demonstrate that gaon sabha's land cannot be encroached by the person who has no right and title to occupy the same.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that once the order for ejectment and damages has been maintained by this Court by dismissing the writ petition filed by respondent no. 5, then there is no justification for respondent no. 5 to occupy the plot in question. They further submitted that respondent no. 5 has not taken any steps to challenge the order of ejectment a