- (1.) PRADEEP Kant, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Anil Kumar Misra and Sri Bhola Nath Yadav for the State. List has been revised but the Counsel for the Land Manage ment Committee did not turn up.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the order passed by the Com missioner, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur dated 7-12-2001 by means of which the Commissioner had upset the order dated 9th September, 1998 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Mirzapur. The facts necessary for the pur pose are that the petitioners claim that they belong to schedule caste and are landless agricultural labourers and are in possession of the Gaon Sabha land since before May 1, 2002 and in fact they are in possession since 1995, therefore, the land has settled with them and they had become Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. The petitioners moved application to this effect before the Tehsildar on 14-2-1997 for declar ing/treating them Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. On this application a report was called for and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of some statement/report by some revenue official accepted the plea of the petitioners acknowledging their right of holding the aforesaid land in view of Section 122-B (4-F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Three revisions were filed by the Gaon Sabha as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate related to the three petitioners, challenging the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the Commissioner. The Commissioner after considering the plea raised by the parties allowed the revisions holding that Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act is not a provision where declaration of any rights can be made over the Gaon Sabha land and that since in the instant case the proceedings were initiated on the ap plication of the petitioners themselves seeking declaration of their rights as Bhumidhar with non- transferable rights over the Gaon Sabha land, the proceedings were not in accordance with law nor were within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
(3.) APART from the aforesaid plea, the Commissioner also entered into fac tual and procedural aspect of the matter and observed that the proceedings were initiated on the application of the petitioner on 14- 2-1997. The order sheet (Fardehkam) dated 20-6-1998 though says that Pradhan and Lekhpal were summoned for recording their statements but the file did not show that any notice was ever issued to them. There is a notice for 3rd July, 1998 which is said to have been issued for summoning the Pradhan and Lekhpal but in the file the statement of Shiv Raj Singh, Up-Pradhan was available but even this statement did not contain any date nor the signatures of the Presiding Officer. Gaon Sabha had also filed ob jections on 15-7-1998 against the aforesaid application but those objec tions were not considered nor disposed of nor the Gaon Sabha was afforded any opportunity to produce evidence. In the proforma Tehsildar mentioned the date of spot inspection as 3rd May, 1998 but no spot memo was prepared. Again no spot memo was prepared on 30-7-1998 nor the said inspection said to have been made. The orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were not speaking and no evidence regard ing the possession of the petitioners from the proclaimed date including Khasra was ever filed;