- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 29.10.1999 passed by respondent no. 1 and the orders dated 10.6.1998 and 4.7.1995 passed by the respondent no. 2 (annexures 8, 3 and 6 respectively).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding was initiated by the respondent no. 2 on the application moved by respondent nos. 3 and 4 with the averment that they were landless labourers and also belonging to Harizan caste and their houses were situated in plot no. 112, they were in possession over the 8 biswa land of the aforesaid plot since 30.6.1985 and as such the land was liable to be settled in their favour under Section 123(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The report was called for by the respondent no. 2 from the concerned Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar. The report dated 24.3.1994 was submitted and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other persons who were in possession over the land in question of the plot no. 112, ex-parte report was accepted by the respondent no. 2 and on that basis, it was directed to record the aforesaid land as abadi in the records vide order dated 4.7.1995. There was no demarcation and without specification of the portion of land of plot no. 112 which is a big plot, the order was passed. In the garb of order, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their land. The portion of the land is bhumidhari land of the petitioners measuring 16 biswa land of the said plot no. 112 which is recorded in the name of the petitioners in Varg 1 Ka and several trees, planted by the ancestor of the petitioners are existing on the land in question. However without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned order was passed on 4.7.1995. When petitioners came to know then the application was filed for recall of the order on the ground that the land in dispute is the property of the petitioners while some portion of the above land is the land of Gaon Sabha which is not in possession of the petitioners. They also belong to scheduled caste community. The proceeding was initiated behind back of the petitioners, however, that recall application was rejected by impugned order dated 10.6.1998. Being aggrieved against that order, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, however, the Additional Commissioner, without considering the grievance of the petitioners merely on the basis of the report, dismissed the revision. Though there was no partition or demarcation of the land in dispute and without specifying the disputed portion, it cannot be settled in favour of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. He further submitted that the orders passed by the respondent no. 2 are wholly without jurisdiction because the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to declare any land as abadi and only civil court has jurisdiction to declare the land as abadi. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.;