SUDHIR NARAIN,J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur directing for ejectment of the petitioner in tho proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (in short the Act).
(2.) The petitioners were issued a notice in the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act stating therein that they had illegally occupied plot No. 283-07-0, 0-10-0 situate at village Jhinguri, Pargana Jahoorabad, District Ghazipur. The petitioners filed objection that they are in possession over certain area of the land in dispute. They have planted grove and acquired right over the land in dispute. The Tahsildar dropped proceedings by order dated 10.6.1994 on the ground that on the plot in dispute various trees belonging to the petitioners are existing and secondly, the petitioners have filed suit under Section 229-B of the Act that is pending, and unless the suit is decided, the petitioners are not liable to be evicted. The Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 2, preferred a revision before the Collector against the said order. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 31.7.1997 holding that mere pendency of suit does not amount to stay of proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act. It was further held that the petitioners failed to establish that by planting trees they have acquired any rights over the land of the Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the disputed land is in the nature of grove. The Lekhpal appeared as witness and he deposed that there are four trees of Mangoes and one tree of Jamun standing over plot No. 382 and one Mango tree and four trees of Mahuwa are standing on plot No. 359. The petitioners have acquired right over the land in dispute. Respondent No. 1 has found that the land was recorded as 'Tall (pond) and it was a Gaon Sabha property. The petitioners cannot acquire any right over such land.
(3.) The petitioners have to establish that it is either tenant's grove or trees were existing prior to the enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on Abadi land so as to get right under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioners failed to prove by adducing such evidence in the case. The order passed by respondent No. 1 in these circumstances does not suffer from any manifest illegality. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have already filed suit for declaration of their rights under Section 229-B of the Act and the suit is still pending.;