S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer in both the writ petitions is for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land allotted to them without following the procedure provided under the Act (U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act). The following are the respondents in the writ petition : 1. The State of U. P. through Collector, Mathura. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mant, district Mathura. 3. The Tehsildar Mant, district Mathura. 4.Gaon Sabha village and Mauja Mant Raja, Tahsil and Pargana Mant, district Mathura through its Pradhan.
(2.) ALL the petitioners in both the writ petitions claimed to be allottees of different portions of land of different plots from the Land Management Committee. It has further been stated in both the writ petitions that all the petitioners were granted asami pattas in the year 1967. Most of the petitioners are stated to have been allotted an area of 1.2 hectares each. However, it is stated that some petitioners were allotted different areas. It has also been alleged that till 2000 petitioners paid the rent however, thereafter it was not accepted by the authorities. It has further been stated that Lekhpal submitted a report to Tehsildar on 4.12.2000 to the effect that petitioners had not paid the rent hence their allotment be cancelled and the said report was approved by Supervisor, Kanoongo Rajasva Nirikshak on 20.12.2000 and thereafter matter was referred by Tehsildar to Sub-Divisional Officer. It has further been alleged that on 3.7.2001 which was a Tehsil Diwas, Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Tehsildar to take appropriate action against the petitioners including the action of dispossession of petitioners. Under Rule 176A of the Rules framed under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act maximum period of asami patta can be five years. Even though this rule was added with effect from 1.11.1975 however, it has been held in Ahmad Zamil v. Additional Commissioner, 2004 (1) AWC 122, that the said rule was applicable even to the asami leases granted prior to 1.11.1975. However, in the said authority it has also been held that the lessees/asami patta holders are entitled to hearing before eviction.
(3.) THE other argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners can be evicted only through suit filed by the Gaon Sabha under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. However, in this regard reference may be made to an authority of this Court in Hari Ram v. Collector, 2004 (97) RD 360 : 2005 (1) AWC 758. In the said authority it has been held that suit under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is not the only provision to evict unauthorised occupant of Gaon Sabha land/asami patta holder after expiry of period of lease. In the said authority it has further been held that Sub-Divisional Officer concerned may in summary proceedings evict the asami patta holder after expiry of period of lease by expunging his name from revenue records. Moreover Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh v. M. A. Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 : 2000 (4) AWC 2993 (SC), has held that no action or order can be set aside on the ground of absence of opportunity of hearing unless it is shown by the aggrieved person that in case opportunity had been provided to him, he would have been able to show some reasonable ground for not taking the action or passing the order. All the petitioners in both these writ petitions clearly admitted that they were granted leases in 1967. Instead of five years, period of 40 years has already expired hence they have got no right to remain in possession.;