- (1.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 22.6.2012 which was passed by the respondent no. 3, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Behat District- Saharanpur and also for the rectification of the khatuani entries. The petitioners who are 43 in number had filed the instant writ petition after they came to know that by an order dated 22.6.2012 entries in their favour as Asamis had been struck off vis-a-vis khatas no. 218, 219, 220, 345, 360, 365, 366, 366/2 and 791.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the petitioners were Asamies then entries in their favour could not have been struck off ex parte by the impugned order dated 22.6.2012. They have submitted that since they came to know very late about the order, they immediately filed the instant writ petition and they did not take recourse to the filing of a Revision. They submitted that since there was a definite violation of the principles of natural justice it did not matter if they did not take recourse to the alternative remedy of filing the Revision and came directly to file the instant writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if an Asami had to be evicted then a Suit under Section 202 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,(hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act') had to be filed. He further submitted that under Rule 176-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,1952,(hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules'), the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub division had to determine the lease before the eviction of an Asami. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 198(9) (a) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act since it was provided that a lessee would continue to be an Asami from year to year if it was found that the lease was wrongly granted over land covered under Section 132 (now section 77 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006) and since the petitioners have continued in possession since 2004, they may not be evicted at all and may be allowed to continue to use the land for agricultural purposes.;