S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Petitioners in the above noted three petitions i.e. Sanjai Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Vinod Kumar are claiming themselves to be members of scheduled cast and in unauthorized occupation of Gaon Sabha land comprised in plot Nos. 828 and 901/3. All the three petitioners claim to be members of Dhobi caste. Petitioners managed reports in their favour by Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Tehsildar in May and June, 2003 to the effect that they were in possession before May, 2000 and they were entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The said provision regularizes the possession of Scheduled Caste agricultural labourers if they are found to be in possession of gaon Sabha land prior to 1.5.2002 unless it is public utility land. Initially cut off date was 30.6.1985 which was later on changed to 3.6.1995. The latest cut off date is 1.5.2002. Vinod Kumar and Vijay Kumar were granted benefit over an area of .248 hectares of plot No. 901/3 which was earlier entered as navin parti. Sanjai Kumar was granted benefit of the aforesaid Sub-section in respect of an area of .188 hectares comprised in plot No. 828. The said plot was also entered as navin parti. On 20.2.2004 S.D.M. by the patent order "accepted as proposed" granted benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act in respect of the above land to the petitioners. Prior to the above order passed by S.D.M., Derapur District Kanpur Dehat proceedings for ejectment of the petitioners had been initiated under Section 122-B of the Act before Tehsildar in the form of case Nos. 25, 24, and 22 respectively. As the petitioners did not appear hence the said cases were decided against the petitioners on 16.1.2004 i.e. prior to the date of order passed by Deputy Collector conferring benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act upon the petitioners. Thereafter each of the petitioners on 28.1.2004 filed restoration application for setting aside ex-parte order passed against him under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. It is therefore, quite clear that on 28.1.2004 all the petitioners were aware of pendency of proceedings of ejectment under Section 122-B of the Act against them. However, they did not inform the Deputy Collector/S.D.O. about the said fact and they manipulated to get favourable order from S.D.O. on 20.2.2004 for getting their names mutated in the revenue record under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act. Tehsildar, Derapur, Kanpur Dehat on 12.5.2004 dismissed the restoration applications on the ground that on the basis of report under Section 122-B restoration applications appeared to be baseless. In the restoration applications all the three petitioners had stated that due to illness they could not appear. Tehsildar was required to decide whether this ground was correct or not. Tehsildar did not say a single word regarding that. The dismissal order cannot therefore be sustained.
(2.) Against the orders dated 16.1.2004 and 12.5.2004 all the petitioners filed revisions which were numbered as revision Nos. 72, 71 and 73 of 2003-04 respectively. Collector, Kanpur Dehat on 31.1.2005 dismissed all the revisions. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 16.1.2004, 12.5.2004 and 31.1.2005. The Collector in respect of order of S.D.O. dated 20.2.2004 held that Lekhpal had given contrary reports and the said order of S.D.O. being based upon the report of Lekhpal was not correct. In the said order of Collector dated 31.1.2005 it is mentioned that the action of the Lekhpal was malafide for which separate action was necessary.
(3.) 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 mal-practice 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. Absolutely no reliance can be placed upon such reports. On the contrary disciplinary proceedings must be initiated against those Lekhpals and other revenue authorities who give such reports. Whenever any Lekhpal or any other revenue authority gives a report that a person is in unauthorized possession of Gaon Sabha land since long before the cut off date then action must be taken against him for his negligence to report the unauthorized occupation and initiate proceedings of eviction of that person before cut off date. Lekhpal is bound to give report of unauthorized occupation of any person over Gaon Sabha land promptly.;