The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to Bhumidhar rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, emphasizing the importance of recognizing statutory protections for marginalized community members.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Sri Kumar Anish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a Suit was filed by the petitioner under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) in respect to plot nos. 335 and 190 situated at village Dubli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar. The issues were framed before the trial Court and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 03.11.1995 decreed the plaintiff's Suit granting benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act recording finding of the fact that petitioner belongs Scheduled Caste (Jatav) Community and has been found in possession since long as well as plot in dispute is not public utility plot, as such petitioner is entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar with non transferable right. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 03.11.1995 was challenged in appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Commissioner which was registered as Appeal No. 15 of 1995-96. The aforementioned appeal was allowed by Additional Commissioner vide judgment dated 25.06.1997 setting aside the judgment/decree dated 03.11.1995. Second appeal filed by petitioners was heard and dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order judgment dated 14.01.2002. Hence this writ petition for following reliefs:-

"I. To issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 14.01.2002 and 25.06.1997 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively.

II. To Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4, 5 and 6 not to disturb the petitioner from his legal possession over the land is dispute.

III. To pass such other and further order or order which may this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper circumstances of the case.

IV. To award the petition to the petitioner from the respondents."

3. This Court entertained the matter and granted the interim order on 10.07.2003. In absence of counter affidavit, this Court admitted writ petition on 06.10.2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was rightly decreed by the trial Court directing to record the name of the petitioner over the plot in question. He further submitted that decree of the trial Court has been set aside in appeal only on the ground that land is covered under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on the ground of possession. He next submitted that second appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He further placed the Government Order dated 03.08.2023 issued in respect to 'shor land' by which 'shor land' has been held to be general category land. He submitted that in view of the Government Order dated Dated 03.08.2023 issued by the Government the ground on which the appeal filed by the Gaon Sabha cannot be allowed and the judgment/decree passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue should be set aside.

5. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the appeal and second appeal were rightly decided at the relevant point of time by the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. They further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 03.08.2023 as the appeal was decided in the year 1997. They next submitted that no interference is required in the matter against the impugned order dated 14.01.2002/25.6.1997 and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute