- (1.) Heard Sri S.D.Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri S.P. Singh for respondents no. 2 & 4.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the father of the petitioner was granted lease by Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur in respect of plot no. 73 situate in Mohalla Miyapur, Near Jail Road, Kutchery Road, Jaunpur for construction of a house on 09.07.1955 for a period of 30 years. The State Government promulgated a policy for conversion of Nazul land into free hold vide Government Order dated 03.09.1994. In pursuance of the aforesaid scheme, a notice dated 03.01.1995 was issued to the petitioner to deposit the requisite amount for conversion of the said plot as a free hold plot. Further allegation made by the petitioner is that in compliance of the said notice, he deposited a sum of Rs.31,680/- on 25.2.1995. Thereafter, a certificate dated 26.2.1995 was issued by then Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur that the petitioner has been granted free hold rights over an area 660 sq. ft. of nazul plot no. 73. The petitioner has further alleged that on 03.02.2005 the officials of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur forcibly demolished his house standing over the said plot and are forcibly trying to dispossess him from the land in question. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents alleging that nazul plot no. 73 was recorded as public road in 'Zaman-50(2)' and since the petitioner has made encroachment over the public land, the same was removed. Further case set up by the respondents is that father of the petitioner was allotted a part of nazul plot no. 73 measuring an area 41' x 10' on 09.07.1955 for a period of 30 years which came to an end in 1984. The petitioner never made any application for renewal of the lease and the application made by him for grant of free hold rights was rejected by the Collector on 21.9.2000 on the ground that the said plot was recorded as a public road and was a public utility land. Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaunpur has also filed a counter affidavit making a categorical averments that lease for a period of 30 years was granted in favour of the father of the petitioners over a part of plot no. 73 and not the entire plot and after expiry of period of lease, no application for renewal of the lease was made. It is also pleaded therein that the petitioner made an encroachment of an area 41' x 10' over part of nazul plot no. 73, which was not given on lease and unauthorized occupation and encroachment was pointed out to the petitioner and marked in his presence and when he failed to remove the said encroachment from over public path, the same was demolished. The application made by the petitioner was in respect of part of nazul plot no. 73, which was recorded as public path over which he made encroachment and free hold application was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 21.9.2000. It is further pleaded in the counter affidavit that the alleged certificate of free hold said to have been issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad is forged and fabricated and no such certificate is available on the record of the Nagar Palika Parishad. The document does not confer any right upon the petitioner as any action in respect of an immovable property can only be taken on the basis of the resolution passed by the Board and the Executive Officer has no such authority. Though a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. But specific averment made in the counter affidavit that free hold application made by the petitioner was rejected by the Collector on 21.9.2000 on the ground that area in respect of which the application was made was recorded as public path and the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the same, have not been denied.
(3.) In view of above facts and discussions, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in demolishing the unauthorized construction made over public path by the petitioner and thus the relief claimed by him is not liable to be granted.;