- (1.) Heard Sri BL Verma for the petitioner and Sri RN Yadav for the respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, who has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 122B of the UP ZA and LR Act (the ZA Act). The dispute pertains plot no 149, area 0.40 hectares, of village Dobhi, pargana Anguli, tehsil Shahganj, district Jaunpur, which in the revenue record is recorded as pasture land. The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from this land and damages to the tune of Rs. 11,000 has been imposed on him. This order of the Tehsildar has been affirmed by the Addl. Collector (CRO), Jaunpur, in revision. It appears that initially an order for eviction was passed by the Tehsildar on 14.5.2013. Against this order the petitioner preferred a revision, which was allowed on 24.3.2014 and the matter was remanded back with the direction of a fresh measurement of the land in question to be carried out on the basis fixed points. It was further directed that the extent of unauthorised occupation by the petitioner be clearly specified. Consequent to the order of remand, a fresh notice under Form 49A was issued to the petitioner.
(2.) At the time of hearing, the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the directions contained in the order of remand dated 24.3.2014 had not been complied with, yet the order for eviction and damages was passed against him. Prior to reserving the judgment in the matter, the following order was passed at the first hearing itself: "In this writ petition this court was inclined to direct the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter and to submit an affidavit stating as to whether the directions issued by the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector directing for a fresh survey of the plot in question and for thereafter issuing a fresh notice under Section 49-A, had been complied or not. This was in view of the submission made that such a survey had not been actually held. Yet learned counsel for the petitioner is not satisfied with such order. He insists that the matter may be heard on its merits. It is therefore, assumed that the petitioner has given up his first point. Accordingly, and after dictating the above order in open court I have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Judgement reserved."
(3.) In view of the order quoted above, the question as to whether or not the directions contained in the order of remand have been complied with, ceases to be of any consequence. The only other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite lengthy arguments, was that a fresh notice was issued in Form 49A on 16.2.2015, fixing 23.2.2015. On that date, the matter was adjourned and thereafter final orders have been passed on 25.2.2015. This order is ex parte and has been passed without any notice to the Management of the institution, which has allegedly encroached upon by the Gaon Sabha. It is further submitted that no statement of the lekhpal was recorded to prove the notice in Form 49A. Further, in paragraph 24 of the writ petition, it has been averred that in case the petitioner is found to be in the unauthorised occupation of any Gaon Sabha land, the petitioner is willing to pay adequate compensation therefor and such unauthorised occupation, may be regularised. The petitioner has further placed reliance upon various orders passed by the Writ Court, wherein some enquiry against the petitioner had been directed to remain stayed.;