- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Yadav who has accepted notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act wherein the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from plot no. 354, area 600 sq. yard which is recorded as banjar." Damages to the tune of Rs. 6410 have also been imposed. Against this order, petitioner preferred a revision which has also been dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 31.08.2015."
(2.) Even before the courts below, the petitioner had set up the claim of an allotment made in his favour on 14.03.1972." However, this theory of allotment has not been accepted by the courts below," since no cogent evidence in this regard was filed by the petitioner. Before this Court, the petitioner has placed reliance upon a receipt to establish his case of allotment in his favour." A copy of the said receipt has annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition." Apart from the above, it has been stated that the petitioner is in possession and his possession has been recorded in khasra of 1401 fasli. Insofar as the khasra is concerned, the very fact that the proceedings under Section 122-B had been initiated against the petitioner, implies that he was in occupation of the land in question but the question is as to whether the possession was authorized or unauthorized. Insofar as the receipt (annexure-2 referred herein above) is concerned, it appears that the same was filed before the Tehsildar who upon a consideration of the same has discarded it for reasons recorded in the order itself. Despite a pointed query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would not point out the provision of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act or the Rules framed thereunder wherein such receipt has been provided for
(3.) Under the circumstances, the receipt having been considered and discarded by the courts below, I find no illegality in the impugned orders.;