Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Narain Singh for the respondent No. 4, Gaon Sabha, and learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents. Both these writ petitions arise out of proceedings under section 122 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and pertain to the same plot being plot No. 1314, which in the revenue records is recorded as a pond. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are brothers and identical pleas have been raised by them and, therefore, it appears fit and proper that the cases be decided together, as they involve identical questions.
(2.) NOTICES were issued to both the petitioners in Form -49 -A, wherein Jaipal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3333 of 2015 was alleged to be in an authorized occupation of 290 square meters of plot No. 1314 while Shyam Lal, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3336 of 2015 was alleged to be in a authorized occupation of 0.02012 hectares of the same plot. In their objections, both the petitioners took a plea that the land in question had been given to their ancestors by the Zamindar for constructing houses. These houses were duly constructed and were in existence, prior to abolition of Zamindari. Subsequently, the old Kachcha house were replaced by new Pakka houses. It is clear from the report of the Lekhpal that several houses exist on the plot in question, which is in the shape of an Abadi and that it is wrongly recorded as pond. It was lastly pleaded that since the quality of land was recorded as 'Sweta Awwal', hence the plot in dispute could not be a pond.
(3.) THE Tehsildar, respondent No. 3, after hearing the parties and after making a spot inspection, found the constructions to be new, ordered eviction of the petitioners and also imposed damages to the tune of Rs. 5100/ - a piece. He recorded that contrary to the case of the petitioners, they had not been able to adduce any proof of any lease in their favour Or the existence of any old houses on the land in question. Moreover, since the land was always recorded as pond, therefore, in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hinchlal Tiwary, eviction was ordered. These orders have been affirmed in revisions filed by the petitioners respectively.;