- (1.) Heard Sri O.P.Pandey along with Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.
(2.) Through this writ petition quashing of the orders dated 17.7.2012, 18.7.2012 and 16.11.2012 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been sought for.? On 4.4.2013 this Court has passed the following order: "On 17.7.2012 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Azamgarh, has passed an order for eviction of the petitioners with further rider that in case they do not vacate the premises proceeding will be initiated for their dispossession. Pursuant thereto another order was passed on 18.7.2012 by the Tehsildar for compliance of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Challenging this order the petitioners had approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 40868 of 2012 (Rama Ram and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) This Court took a view that there is no likelihood of petitioners eviction immediately as only proceedings is to be initiated against them. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy available to them in law for establishing their right. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste community and are entitled to get the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act). Their names are liable to be recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue record. Pending petitioners' application seeking declaration the order impugned has been passed by the same Sub Divisional Officer for recording the land as Community Visiting Center. The question is as to whether the land is to be settled with the petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 122B (4F) of the Act or not and secondly as to whether the order impugned can be passed circumventing the petitioners' statutory right under section 122B(4F) of the Act. Learned standing counsel is directed to seek instruction and produce complete record of the case by the next date fixed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh is directed to remain present before the Court on the date fixed with a view to assist the learned standing counsel."
(3.) The crux of the dispute has already been noticed by this Court? as? mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order dated 4.4.2013. The Sub Divisional Officer was required to produce the record and explain his conduct. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State informs that prior to filing of the writ petition the petitioners have filed Revision No. 247/A of 2013 (Vijai Ram vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the impugned order. Learned standing counsel not only showed the photostat copy of the revision filed by the petitioners but he has also shown the requisition letter issued by the office of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh summoning the record of the court, which have been brought on record of the writ petition.? Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he may be granted time to ascertain as to whether the revision has been filed or not. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the papers produced by the learned standing counsel.;