- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition petitioner has challenged order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 11-4-1994 and that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation/additional Collector dated 6-9-1994 by which person in possession over plot No. 161 (0. 11) situated in village Lakhna, Tahsil and Pargana Bhardhana, District Etawah has been directed to be dispossessed.
(2.) THERE is no dispute about certain facts and therefore, on brief summary the matter can be conveniently disposed of. The dispute relates to the rights/possession over the land referred above. Petitioner claims to be a lady of weaker section and in possession since long on account of which proceedings under Section 122- B, U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act started against her was dropped and thereafter land was allotted to her by means of resolution of the concerned Gaon Sabha. At the same time petitioner claims that in the consolidation proceedings, objection filed by the petitioner for mutation of her name is still pending and therefore, submission is that exercise by the appellate authority and Revisional Court being illegal and without jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed. To oppose the aforesaid learned Counsel for the respondent comes up with the submission that order has been passed against one Dayalu and therefore, petitioner cannot claim herself aggrieved by the order and otherwise also if the petitioner is in possession over the land which admittedly belonged to Gaon Sabha petitioner cannot get any relief from this Court. Submission is that appellate authority and Revisional Court have exercised proper jurisdiction to direct for eviction of the person who is in possession over the land in dispute and therefore, no exception can be taken to it. Further submission is that petitioner has stated wrong facts before this Court in the affidavit and therefore, besides dismissal of the writ petition proceedings for fraud is also liable to be started against her. On these premises submission is that writ petition needs dismissal.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid the Court has examined the matter. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record as placed before this Court by means of affidavit from either of the sides it appears that petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 14-3-1978 by which proceedings under Section 122-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act is said to have been dropped against the petitioner in respect to the land in dispute i. e. Plot No. 161 (0. 11 ). Petitioner has further brought on record copy of the resolution dated 30-1-1982 which land referred above, is said to have been allotted to the petitioner by stating about her possession over the land. Petitioner has also brought on record copy of the statement of the Pradhan in which he has said that petitioner is in possession. Be as it may, objection which is said to have been filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer is said to be still pending and thus rights/claim of the petitioner over the land in question either on the basis of her long possession as provided under the provisions of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act or otherwise is to attain finality after final order passed by the Consolidation Officer or thereafter on finalisation of the proceedings in the higher forum. It is in this situation moving of the application by respondent No. 3 before the appellate authority and giving of the direction by the appellate authority to the concerned police station and direction given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/additional Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer for dispossession of either the person who is in possession over the land or the petitioner who claims to be in possession over the land cannot be said to be justified and proper on the facts of the present case. Petitioner claims to have acquitted rights under the provisions of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act but at the same time this is not to be examined by this Court at this stage as that will be concern of the concerned authorities to take appropriate decision in the matter after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides. If this is to be done passing of any order by the appellate authority or Revisional Court in exercise of the powers under Section 48 of U. P. C. H. Act cannot be said to be justified. Section 48 of U. P. C. H. Act gives power to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine correctness, legality and property of any order/proceedings of the authorities below and not otherwise. Appellate authority and the revisional Court appears to be not possessed with any administrative powers to pass any order just on moving application by respondent No. 3. Be as it may, dispute appears to be a complicated one about question of title and therefore, without there being proper adjudication in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing and after adducing evidence, such kind of order, this Court feels need not to be passed.;