Longstanding occupants may be awarded damages instead of eviction, emphasizing the principle of justice in land disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Irshad Ali, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 27.07.2006 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision No.148 of 2005- 2006 under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act and judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by respondent No.3 in case No.25 of 2005-06 under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR Act contained as Anneuxre Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that father of the petitioner namely late Babulal was owner of the house in suit prior to abolition of Zamindari and as per provision of Section 9 of UPZA&LR Act, 1950 the land in suit was settled with the house of the owner namely late Babulal - father of the petitioner and since then father of the petitioner was in continuous possession till his life and after the death of father of the petitioner the petitioner is in continuous possession over the house in suit.

4. On 05.02.1987, village of the petitioner comes under the limit of Lucknow Nagar Nigam. On 29.07.1994 a notice in ZA form 49-A was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3. On 21.08.1995 the petitioner filed his written statement before respondent No.3. On 14.03.2005 statement of P.W.-1 was recorded in connection to case No.25/28/05/06 under Section 122- B of UPZA&LR Act.

5. On 10.10.2005 statement of D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 was recorded before respondent No.3. On 12.04.2006 respondent No.3 passed the judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 in case No.25/05/06 against the petitioner under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR Act.

6. On 26.04.2006, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 333 of UPZA&LR Act before respondent No.2 against order dated 12.04.2006. Vide order dated 27.07.2006 respondent No.2 dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the finding returned by respondent No.3, hence present writ petition has been filed.

7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the house is built prior to applicability of U.P. ZA & LR Act and in this regard the statement of Ram Khelawan was also taken into consideration but no finding has been returned on the statement given by Ram Khelawan and in a very cursory manner has come to the conclusion that there is no material or evidence on record to establish that the house is built prior to commencement of UPZA&LR Act.

8. His next submission is that the house is existing since long and in case by paying damages the same can be regularized. In support of his submission that instead eviction from the land in dispute, damages would be awarded to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon following judgments:

(i) Manno Prasad v. Upper Collector (Prashasan), Kanpur Dehat and another reported in 2009(27) LCD 812 (ii) D.C.M. Limited v. The Collector, Ghaziabad and others reported in 2007(25)LCD 1194

9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from infirmity or illegality and are just and valid orders. The petitioner could not establish his claim that the house under possession was built prior to commencement of UPZA & LR Act.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record as well as case-laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. It is admitted case of the parties in the writ petition that interim order was granted on 24.08.2006 in favour of the petitioner, which is extracted hereinbelow:

"Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice for opposite party no. 1 and 3.

Sri Jyotinjaya Verma appeared for opposite party No.4.

Six week's time is allowed to file counter affidavit, two weeks for rejoinder affidavit.

List thereafter.

In the meantime operation of impugned judg