Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of Case No.46 of 2013 initiated under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as well as orders passed therein.
(2.) Facts, which are not in dispute, are that petitioner is a Bhumidhar of Khasra No.115, and an application was filed by him for exchange of such plot with plot no.198. The prayer made by petitioner for exchange was considered, and recommended by the Gaon Sabha. It transpires that the prayer for exchange was allowed, after calling for necessary reports from the revenue authorities, vide order of the concerned authority dated 20th February, 1975. An application, consequently, was moved by the petitioner for exchange to be given effect to in the revenue records. Pursuant to such order, petitioner exchanged his holding of plot no.115 with plot no.198. Petitioner, however, did not remove his possession and thus proceedings were initiated under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the petitioner in respect of plot no.115. It appears that at this stage, petitioner moved an application for the earlier exchange to be set aside on the premise that he wants to retain his original plot no.115. An order came to be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 19th May, 1984, ultimately rejecting the exchange sought by the petitioner. In view of the fact that ultimately exchange did not materialize, the proceedings under Section 122-B drawn against the petitioner were dropped, vide order dated 19th January, 1985, in respect of plot no.115. Petitioner then filed an original suit no.166 of 1990 before the civil court for declaration that he is in possession of plot no.198, which was decreed in the absence of any contest by the Gaon Sabha, and an injunction was issued. The State or its authorities were not impleaded as a party respondent in the suit. It further transpires that though petitioner claimed his abadi over plot no.198, but no declaration has been brought on record to show that the plot was declared to be non-agricultural under Section 143 of the Act of 1950.
(3.) From the materials, which have been brought on record, it is apparent that petitioner's claim over plot no.198 was based upon the exchange offered by him in lieu of his land of plot no.115, and once the exchange proceedings had failed/withdrawn, there was no right available to petitioner over plot no.198. Proceedings under Section 122-B have now been initiated against the petitioner for his eviction from plot no.198. The proceedings are challenged on the ground that once the decree passed in original suit no.166 of 1990 has attained finality, the respondents have no right to initiate proceedings for eviction against him.;