LALARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-697
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
May 21,2018
LALARAM
Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and 3 Others
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GOSWAMI KRISHNA MURARILAL SHARMA V. DHAN PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]SMT. LACHI TEWARI V. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQ V. MUNSHILAL [REFERRED TO]
TAHIL RAM ISSARDAS SADARANGANI VS. RAMCHAND ISSARDAS SADARANGANI [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA NARAHARI VS. NANDAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MALKIATSINGH VS. JOGINDERSINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. -
(1.)Heard Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Manu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
(2.)The petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Collector, District Kasganj in Revision No. D0201718750367 (Lalaram v. Gram Sabha) under Section 333 read with Section 122B (4A) of UP ZA and LR Act and the order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Kasganj in Case No.7 of 2012 (Gram Sabha v. Lalaram) under Section 122B of UP ZA and LR Act.
(3.)Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was using the land in dispute as abadi and the house of the petitioner is situated on the land in dispute since long time. The report of the Revenue Inspector itself indicated that the land in dispute was being used by the petitioner as abadi. Earlier the proceeding under Rule 115C of UP ZA and LR Rules was initiated against the father of the petitioner in the year 1959 and the same was registered as Suit No.290 of 1959 (Gram Sabha v. Bhagi @ Bhagwant) . The aforesaid suit was decided in his favour. After the death of his father, the petitioner is using the land in dispute as abadi and there were several trees of Shisham, Neem, Mango, Jamun etc. The proceeding under Section 122B of UP ZA and LR Act has been initiated against the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate was appearing and doing pairavi on behalf of the petitioner before the second respondent. The Advocate of the petitioner had died during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding before the second respondent and the same has been finalized against the petitioner ex-parte on 29.3.2014. The petitioner has also taken categorical objection while filing the revision in question but at no point of time, the said objection has been considered by the revisional Court and the same has been dismissed on 30.10.2017.
(2.)The petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Collector, District Kasganj in Revision No. D0201718750367 (Lalaram v. Gram Sabha) under Section 333 read with Section 122B (4A) of UP ZA and LR Act and the order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Tehsil Sadar, District Kasganj in Case No.7 of 2012 (Gram Sabha v. Lalaram) under Section 122B of UP ZA and LR Act.
(3.)Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was using the land in dispute as abadi and the house of the petitioner is situated on the land in dispute since long time. The report of the Revenue Inspector itself indicated that the land in dispute was being used by the petitioner as abadi. Earlier the proceeding under Rule 115C of UP ZA and LR Rules was initiated against the father of the petitioner in the year 1959 and the same was registered as Suit No.290 of 1959 (Gram Sabha v. Bhagi @ Bhagwant) . The aforesaid suit was decided in his favour. After the death of his father, the petitioner is using the land in dispute as abadi and there were several trees of Shisham, Neem, Mango, Jamun etc. The proceeding under Section 122B of UP ZA and LR Act has been initiated against the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate was appearing and doing pairavi on behalf of the petitioner before the second respondent. The Advocate of the petitioner had died during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding before the second respondent and the same has been finalized against the petitioner ex-parte on 29.3.2014. The petitioner has also taken categorical objection while filing the revision in question but at no point of time, the said objection has been considered by the revisional Court and the same has been dismissed on 30.10.2017.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.