R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by announcement by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Pilibhit during his visit to village Bhara Pachpera. Jahanbad that persons interested in allotment of land in dispute should apply within fifteen days before Tahsildar. The petitioner, a society, registered as Bareilly Gaushala Society approached this court by this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is claimed that land in dispute did not vest in State Government or Gaon Sabha on abolition of Zamindari as it belonged to petitioner a registered Gaushala. Copy of order dated 31st July 57 passed by Assistant Collector, Pilibhit has been filed to show that in correction of papers case filed under Land Revenue Act, the Land Management Committee did not contest despite service of notice. And it was held that as petitioner was a charitable institution and land was held by it for public purpose the provision of Z.A. Act were not applicable. Therefore, it was directed that revenue records be corrected and land in dispute be recorded as non Z.A. Area. In counter affidavit, the claim is contested. It is alleged that out of 2002.98 acres 12.06 was recorded in name of Public Works Department and District Board. Remaining 1990.92 acres was recorded in name of Gaon Sabha after abolition of Zamindari. Out of this 270.13 was entered in petitioner's name. He was, therefore, recorded as its sirdar. But in 1957 the Assistant Collector by an illegal order directed entire land to be recorded as non Z.A. Area.
(2.) ON 1st July 1952 Notification No. 4093/1 -450 -1951 was published by State Government in exercise of powers conferred under clause (c) sub -section (i) of Section 2 of U.P. Z.A. 1 of 1951. It declared that provision of Z.A. Act did not apply to area mentioned in its various sub clauses. Clause (5) of it reads as under: - - (5) held or acquired by a 'Gaushala, an association registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860, a medical institution or a Dharmshala for purposes of building and land appurtenant to such buildings. Although it is not admitted but from averments in writ petition and bye laws of society filed with rejoinder affidavits, it hardly admits of any doubt that petitioner was registered as a Gaushala. Learned Standing counsel urged that even if it was land held or acquired by a Gaushala it should have been held for purposes of building and land appurtenant to such building. May be but it has to be adjudicated upon. As yet no lis has arisen. In any case, opposite -parties could not dispossess petitioner by force. Land in dispute was no entered in name of petitioner in revenue records before abolition of Zamindari as is clear from various extracts filed in this court. In correction of papers case petitioner was found in possession. If opposite -parties intended to allot the land, they should have first taken recourse in law to get right and title declared. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The opposite -parties are directed not to interfere with possession of petitioner. It shall be open to them to take action against petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.;