- (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-5-1992 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, by means of which the land in question situate in Gaon Sabha has been vested to the State under Section 117 (6) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms' Act.
(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land which has been vested to State, could not be revested to Indian Oil Corporation Limited for diesel outlet or to the Sainik Kalyan Nigam, which are not local authority within the meaning of General Clauses Act. The petitioners 'claim that they are heirs and successors of one Vishnu Sharan (since deceased) who had obtained on lease the land in question alongwith other land situate in village Kamlabad Farhauli, Pargana Mohan, Tahsil Malihabad, district Lucknow on payment of premium to Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in the year 1965 Certain proceedings under Rule 15-D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules were initiated by Tahsildar Malihabad on the basis of a report of the Supervisor Kanungo Bakhshi' Ka Talab, Lucknow for dispossession and ejectment of Vishnu Sharan from the land in question. A revision was filed against that order before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow who made a reco mmendation to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order passed by Tahsildar on the ground that a bona fide dispute of title was involved and as such ejectment in summary proceedings could not be resorted to. The proceedings under Section 115-D terminated in favour of the lessee Vishnu Sharan as the Judicial Member- of the Board of Revenue accepted the recommendation of the Commissioner and held that the eviction could not be effected in a summary manner, but the lessee could be evicted only if the Gaon Sabha files the suit for eviction. From the averments in the writ petition, it appears that Vishnu Sharan had also taken certain proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. against the threatened action of the Gaon Sabha and others to dispossess the petitioner. Those proceedings finally terminated in favour of Vishnu Sharan, the lessee, as a result of the order passed by this Court dated 24th September, 1982 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1254 of 1981. Pending proceedings in revision before this Court. The impugned notification dated 28th May, 1992 was issued by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow purporting to act under sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. A copy of the notification is contained as Annexure 9 to this writ petition. It may be observed that sub-section (6) of. Section 117 under which the impugned notification was issued, inter alia, provides that the State Government may at any time, by general or special order to be published in the manner prescribed, amend or cancel any declaration, notification or order made in respect of the things provided under that section, whether generally or in the case of any Gaori Sabha etc. and resume such things, and whenever the State Government resumes any such things, the Gaon Sabha or other local authority, as the case may be, shall be entitled to receive and be paid compensation on account of only of the development, if any, effected by it in or over that things. The proviso attached to sub-section (6) of Section 117 aforesaid contemplates that the State Government may after such resumption make a fresh declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) vesting the things resumed in the same or any other local authority (including a Gaon Sabha), and the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5), as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis, apply to such declaration.
(3.) THE main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the State has no jurisdiction to revest or allot the land to Indian Oil Corporation Limited or to Sainik Kalyan Nigam. THE learned Counsel did not challenge the resumption of the disputed land by the State Government through the impugned notificaton. We are of the view that as the land has been vested to the State, the right of the Gaon Sabha whatsoever existed, extinguished. THE Gaon Sabha has not come forward to challenge the impugned notification. THE petitioner's contention that they t being the heirs and successors of the ex-lessee of the disputed land on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, have a right to remain in possession until they are dispossessed in accordance with law could not be considered in view of the fact that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 Capt. Ajit Singh, it has been clearly averred that the land in dispute has been leased in his favour for installation of a diesel retail outlet by Sainik Kalyan Anu-bhag, which is a component of the Social and Harijan. Welfare Department of Uttar Pradesh Govern ment on behalf of the Governor of the State, and the possession of the disputed land was handed "over to him peacefully and without any objection from any quarter. THE respondent No. 5 has filed a copy of the registered lease-deed and the letter dated 18th March, 1993 is Annexures 1 and 2 to his counter affidavit in support of the allegations that he has been granted a lease in respect of the land in question and the physical possession was also handed over to him. THEre is a further averment in the counter affidavit that the respondent No. 5 has started earth work on the site for filling the land upto ground level after the authorities had approved the "plan vide letter dated 18th February, 1994 in respect of the diesel outlet sanctioned in favour of the respondent No. 5. THE petitioners have refuted the claim made by the respondent No. 5 in their rejoinder affidavit by saying that no authority could deliver either symbolic or physical possession to the respondent No. 5, and the petitioners are still in possession of the land in dispute. From the affidavits exchanged between the parties it is quite evident that there is a serious dispute with regard to the question as to who is in actual possession of the disputed land. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India normally does not enter into and decide disputed questions of fact. If the petitioners have already been dispossessed, they have their remedy to take recourse to % competent civil court for possession, and if they still hold the possession, the law will take its own course in that regard. At the cost of repetition, we may observe that the only question that was seriously pressed before this Court, was that the petitioners could not be dispossessed from the land in $ dispute except in accordance with law. As there is a serious dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner is still is possession or their possession has been ousted as has been asserted by the respondent No. 5, we do not feel inclined to interfere in the matter for the reasons already set out earlier. THE writ petition in accordingly dismissed. An oral prayer was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners' for grant of a certificate to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India. As no substantial question of interpretation of any provision of the Constitution of India or any law is involved in the instant case, we decline to grant the certificate. The oral prayer for certificate is accordingly rejected. Petitioner dismissed. .;