S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) In Sanjai Kumar v. Collector Writ Petition No. 13191 of 2005 connected with two other writ petitions decided on 9.3.03 I have held that provision of Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act which regularizes unauthorized occupation of scheduled caste agricultural labourer over Gaon Sabha land continuing since before 1.5.2002, is being utterly misused. After the substitution of the said cut off date several members of scheduled caste manipulated favourable report from Lekhpal and other revenue authorities to the effect that the claimants were in possession since before 1.5.02 in order to avail the benefit of the aforesaid sub section 4-F In the said judgment I have held in para 3 as follows: "Whenever a new cut off date for conferring benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act is provided, people belonging to scheduled caste start claiming benefit of the said Section by creating evidence of prior possession. In view of this rampant malpractice it is most essential that whenever benefit of aforesaid sub section (4-F) is claimed the claimant must show that he is in unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha land and his name is recorded in the revenue records prior to the cut off date or the proceedings for his ejectment must be pending since before the cut off date. If it is not so then no amount of evidence can be looked into in that regard.. In most of the cases like the present ones Pradhans, Lekhpals and other Revenue authorities in collusion with claimants give wrong reports of possession of the claimants prior to the cut off date. "
(2.) In the instant case also position is exactly similar. Earlier for the same relief which is claimed in the instant writ petition petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4723 of 2005. In the said writ petition it was stated that the Tehsildar had earlier decided the matter in favour of the petitioner on 27.6.03. However, copy of the said order was not filed. That writ petition was therefore dismissed with liberty to file fresh writ petition annexing therewith copy of order dated 27.6.03 passed by the Tehsildar. Accordingly hence this writ petition has been filed annexing therewith copy of order of Tehsildar dated 27.6.03 as Annexure 5.
(3.) The matter relates to Gaon Sabha plot No. 1413 area .906 hectares (about 9000 sq. met.)situate in Village Ataur Tehsil Sadar, district Ghaziabad. In the order dated 27.6.03 passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector (First Class), Ghaziabad it is mentioned that the said case was initiated on the report of Halka Lekhpal dated 25.9.02. In the report it was mentioned that petitioner had occupied the land in dispute prior to 1410 Fasli and he was using that for agriculture purpose. On the basis of said report Case No. 8 under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act L.M.C. v. Ghanshyam was initiated. The Lekhpal also gave oral statement in the case and stated that petitioner was continuously in possession since before 1410 Fasli and petitioner was Balmiki i.e. scheduled caste and land less agricultural labourer and he had no means of livelihood except doing agriculture in the land in dispute. It is quite clear that Lekhpal was virtually gifting the govt./Gaon Sabha land to the petitioner. Petitioner stated that he was in occupation of the land in dispute for 17 years. Some persons intervened in the case and stated that the age of the petitioner was only 31 years hence 17 years before he would have been only 14 years of age and minor could not illegally occupy the Gaon Sabha land and that father of the petitioner was employed in Nagar Nigam, Delhi. The Tehsildar did a wonderful thing. He held that no documentary evidence was filed to show that the petitioner was not in possession over the land in dispute. The Tehsildar held that the petitioner was in possession much before 2.5.2002 hence he was entitled to get the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. Thereafter petitioner filed regular suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act (suit no.54 of 2003-04) Asstt. S.D.O./Assistant Collector (First Class) Ghaziabad through judgment and order dated 30.10.04 dismissed the suit on the ground that relief in the form of entry of petitioners name as owner (ought to be Bhumidar) in revenue record under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act could be granted by the Tehsildar himself and no regular suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. was maintainable for the said purpose. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before Tehsildar on 2.11.04 for entry of his name as Bhumidar over the land in dispute in the revenue record. For the same relief another application was filed by the petitioner on 6.1.05 before S.D.O., Sadar, Ghaziabad. Prayer through this writ petition is that respondents may be directed to decide the aforesaid application of the petitioner for mutation of this name in revenue records over the land in dispute within the time specified by this Hon'ble Court.;