- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Both, the present writ petition No. 54196 of 1999 and the Writ Petition No. 52268 are related with the declaration of the right under Section 122B(4F) declaring as bhumidhar with non transferable right vide order dated 7.8.97, hence both the petitions are decided jointly by common order. By means of the writ petition, the impugned orders dated 21.7.1999 (Annexure III) dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure-V) and 2.12.1998 passed by the respondents have been challenged and further prayer is to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 6 to pay the petitioner compensation for wrongful dispossession from the plot in dispute. On 22.12.1999 the interim order was passed to stay the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 26.4.1997 the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar passed an order on the proceeding under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and & L.R. Act., regarding illegal possession of the petitioner and the proceeding was dropped with further observation that the petitioner might initiate proceeding under Section 122B(4F) of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter in pursuance of the order an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 S.D.O. Gautam Budhnagar. That application was decided by order dated 7.8.97. The claim of the petitioner was accepted and he was declared as Bhumidhar with non transferable right giving benefit under Section 122B(4F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and in pursuance of that order the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land of Khasra No. 17/1M Rakba 1-11-10. Subsequently against that order one private person namely Lalit, respondent No. 5, moved an application for recall of the order which was not maintainable. However, on that application an order dated 7.8.1997 was recalled by order dated 2.12.1998 on the ground that the order was ex parte. Against that revision was preferred by the petitioner which has also been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Meerut Division, Meerut.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provision since the petitioner was found in possession who was schedule cast land less labourer and as such rightly the order was passed in favour of the petitioner under Section 122B(4F) and petitioner was declared as Bhumidhar with non transferable right. There was no requirement of hearing on the application of Lalit, respondent No. 5, however, the order was recalled. The order of S.D.O./Additional Collector is illegal, arbitrary and even in the year 2002 provision of the filing of the suit for declaration under Section 122B(4F) was deleted. Now there is no requirement of seeking declaration and if schedule caste landless labourer is found in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha vested under Section 117 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the order can be passed under Section 122B(4F). Hence in the present case order passed in favour of the petitioner was in accordance with law and as such the subsequent order passed by the S.D.O. recalling the order and order of the revisional Court are liable to be set aside. He relied judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Manorey alias Manohar v. Board of Revenue (U.P.) and others, 2003 0 RevDec 538 and decision of single Judge of this Court passed in the Writ Petition No. 17713 of 1997 Jagdish Pandey v. Additional Collector, decided on 3.8.2011 in which it was held that if any person or villager has signed on the documents on behalf of the Gaon Sabha that would be inappropriate and illegal and the villager will not be authorised to sign on behalf of the Gaon Sabha hence the memo of the revision signed by the villager was not a competent revision.;