JOGENDRA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U P & OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-352
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 06,2012

Jogendra And Another Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against two orders passed on 30.11.2005 by Tehsildar, Judicial/ Assistant Collector, Meerut one in Case No.385 instituted by Gaon Sabha against petitioner No.1, Jogendra and the other in Case No.378 instituted by Gaon Sabha against petitioner No.2, Nawab. The allegation in the case against the petitioner No.1 was that about a year before he had illegally encroached upon an area of 100 square meters of Plot No.101, which was Gaon Sabha property and in the form of Jauhar (small pond). Petitioner No.1 outrightly denied his possession. It was also stated by petitioner No.1 that earlier also similar proceedings had been initiated against him which were subject matter of Writ Petition No.15512 of 2004 (the said writ petition in which area of land in dispute was 60 square meters has been allowed by me in part on 28.08.2012). Ultimately order of eviction was passed and Rs.10,000/- were also imposed as damages. Similarly, in the case against petitioner No.2 the allegation was that he had encroached upon an area of 70 square meter of same Plot No.101, total area of which was 6580 square meter. Petitioner No.2 also outrightly denied his possession over any part of Gaon Sabha land/ pond. In the said case also without recording specific findings regarding the assertion of petitioner No.2 that he was not in possession, order of eviction was passed and damages of Rs.7000/- were also imposed. Both the petitioners filed revisions against the orders passed by Tehsildar. Revision of petitioner No.1 was registered as Revision No.41 of 2005-06 and Revision of petitioner No.2 was registered as Revision No.42 of 2005-06. Additional Collector (Administration), Meerut dismissed both the revisions on 25.01.2006 by separate but similar orders hence this writ petition.
(3.) Revisional Court mentioned that lekhpal along with his report filed sketch map (nazri naksha). It is therefore quite clear that even lekhpal had not done any survey.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.