Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) -Sri S. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made a statement that he may be permitted to delete the name of the respondent No. 3 from the array of parties. Permission prayed for is granted. Sri Mishra is directed to delete the name of the respondent No. 3 which he has done in the Court itself. Thereafter, the matter was heard on merits and it was dismissed by me on 23rd May, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now, here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 27th February, 1984 passed by the Assistant Collector / Tehsildar, Bindaki, Fatehpur (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), and the order dated 15th November, 1984 passed by the Collector, Fatehpur (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). By the impugned order dated 27th February, 1984 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the petitioner has been found to be in occupation of Plot No. 588 unauthorisedly. Therefore, the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar directed that the petitioner will be liable to pay damages amounting to Rs. 3,000. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner that he has unauthorisedly occupied the land belonging to Gram Samaj, namely, Plot No. 588 for the period 1373 F. to 1382 F. and he has ripe up the benefit of the trees during these three years, the market value whereof is not less than Rs. 3,000. Against the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner was asked to submit explanation and the petitioner submitted his objection/explanation and thereafter the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar by the order dated 24th December, 1979 has found that no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint is rejected.
(3.) AGAINST the order of the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar dated 24th December, 1979, a review application has been filed by Ram Krishna, whereby the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar has cancelled the order dated 24th December, 1979 and directed that notice be issued again in Form 49-Ka to the opposite party. Ram Kishore (O.P.) has submitted his objection to the notice referred to above that the Assistant Collector has passed the order after hearing the matter on merits on 24th December, 1979 which cannot be reviewed. The matter went upto the Additional Commissioner and thereafter the matter was heard and Ram Kishore has not appeared. Instead one Pradhan of the village, namely, Ram Sanehi and the Lekhpal were examined on behalf of Gaon Sabha. After considering the evidence on record and the respective case of the parties, the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar vide its order dated 27th February, 1984 directed for payment of damages which has been fixed as Rs. 3,000 to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Collector, Fatehpur. The Collector after hearing the revisionist and the Gram Sabha has arrived at the conclusion that the land in question is a property of Gram Sabha and the standing trees have been cut away by the petitioner unauthorisedly, therefore, the damages which was directed to be paid do not warrant interference in revision and the revision was accordingly dismissed.;