- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dents.
(2.) PERUSED the record. Feeing aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Tehsildar in the proceed ings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act directing the eviction of the petitioner from plot No. 785 excepting an area of 0. 20 Hec tares for use as a passage and demolition of unauthorised constructions made by him standing in the remaining area of 0. 170 hec tares, the petitioner sought to challenge the said order by filing a revision under Section 122-B (4-A) of the U. P. Zamindari Abdoli-tion and Land Reforms Act without any success as the said revision was dismissed vide the order dated 29-8-1995 by the Addi tional Collector, the respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved the petitioner has now approached this Court, seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the aforesaid orders.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Additional Tehsildar framed three issues and after considering the oral and documen tary evidence on the record as well as the report of the commissioner he came to the conclusion that plot No. 785 in dispute which had been claimed to have been encroached upon in an unauthorised man ner by the petitioner constituted a land con templated under Section 132 of the U. P. Zamindari abdolition and Land Reforms Act which had been reserved for a public purpose for being utilised as a 'khalihan'. He also came to the conclusion that an area of 0. 037 hectares of the area of land in dis pute was lying vacant and a portion thereof was being utilised as a passage. In his objections to the notice in Z. A. Form 49-A, the petitioner had asserted in paragraph 6 thereof that the Gram Prad-han and the Up-Pradhan acting in collusion with the brother of Ajab Singh the brother of the Pradhan and Rampal, the brother of the Up-Pradhan had encroached upon the plot No. 785 vesting in the Gaon Sabha and had raised a construction thereon hurriedly leaving no space closing the passage used by the petitioner to reach his 'gher'. The aforesaid assertions made by the petitioner himself clearly indicate that the entries in C. H. Form-41 and C. H. Form-45 relied upon by the Additional Tehsildar for hold ing the land in dispute to be vesting in the Gaon Sabha were not incorrect in any man ner as the petitioner himself disclosed in paragraph 6 of the objections that the plot No. 785 vested in the Gaon Sabha. How ever, in paragraph 3 of this objections, the petitioner had asserted that the land in dis pute was not the property of the Gaon Sabha and the possession of the petitioner over the same could not be taken to be unauthorised. What was asserted was that towards the south of the land in dispute, the petitioner had his ancestral 'gher' the door whereof opened towards the land in dispute and the land in dispute was being utilised as the 'sehan' of the 'gher' and as a passage for the ingress and egress of the carts, tethering of the cattle and keeping the carts. So far as this user is concerned, the claim was that the petitioner was utilising the land in dispute for the aforesaid purposes since before the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abdoli tion and Land Reforms Act.;