- (1.) This petition questions the correctness of the order dated 7th July, 2011 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the subsequent order dated 5.8.2011 passed in revision by the Collector holding that the Petitioner-institution has encroached upon public utility land affirming the order of the Respondent No. 3.
(2.) The background in which the dispute arose is that the Petitioner-institution claimed itself to be in existence prior to the abolition of Zamindari and enforcement of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The land, over which encroachment is alleged, is a Bungalow standing thereon together with a connecting road which is in the shape of a passage for the school numbered as Plot Nos. 612 and 625 respectively. The revenue records indicate that it is recorded as a Bungalow and pathway. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area concerned, namely, Respondent No. 3 passed an order on 25th February, 2011 calling upon the Petitioner to remove its possession from the said plots within three days failing which the possession was to be removed and expenses to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(3.) The Petitioner-institution which is being run in the said premises faced with this terse order rushed up to this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14222 of 2011 in which the following judgment was delivered on 30.3.2011 allowing the writ petition: Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. By this petition, Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25/2/2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, by which the Sub Divisional Officer has directed the Petitioners to remove their possession from Plot Nos. 612 and 625 within three days failing which the possession shall be removed and expenses shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners' institution is running since long and in the year 1996 it was also given grant-in-aid. He submits that by the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, a direction has been issued for removing the possession. He submits that the allegations made in the notice are not correct and the Petitioners' institution is being run on the land belonging to the institution. He further submits that in any view of the matter the Sub Divisional Officer by an administrative order cannot direct for eviction, and if there was any allegation, it was open for him to draw appropriate proceedings so that the Petitioners may have got an opportunity to refute the allegations. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Sub Divisional Officer has passed only an administrative order. In case the case was against the Petitioners that they have encroached certain public land, it was open for the competent authority to draw a proceeding in accordance with law. Without drawing appropriate proceedings for eviction of a person from public land, no direction on the administrative side can be issued. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 25/2/2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. It shall however, be open for the competent authority to draw appropriate proceedings. With the aforesaid observation writ petition stands disposed of.;