- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 7th October, 1985, passed by the Additional Collector (Admn.) Aligarh, in a revision petition whereby he purports to have allowed a revision petition preferred by the Gaon Sabha of (village Lampur under Section 122-B (4-A) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has remitted the matter back to him for fresh disposal.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. I have heard Miss Madhu Tandon, Advocate, holding the brief from Sri G. N. Verma, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. On behalf of the Gaon Sabha, the village Lekhpal who is the Secretary of the Land Management Committee, made a report dated 29th February, 1980, claim ing that the present petitioner had illegal ly occupied Gaon Sabha land consisting of Plot Nos. 258/1 (measuring 14 biswas), 259/1 (measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas), 267/1 (measuring 10 biswas), 287/1 (measuring 10 biswas), 290 (measuring 6 biswas), 292 (measuring 1 bigha 7 biswas), 297 (measuring 1 biswa), 298/1 (measuring 1 biswa) and 302/2 (measuring 2 biswas ). Thereupon, a notice in Form 49-K prescribed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules was issued to the petitioner who contested the proceedings alleging that the land in ques tion was not Gaon Sabha property and was owned by him. He gave details how he had acquired the said land and was in posses sion thereof for a long time. It was claimed that the disputed land was acquired by his father and wife from one Swadeshi Bima Company and others by various sale- deeds and he is in possession thereof since the date of purchase. According to him, 60 bighas of land was purchased by the said Swadeshi Bima Company in 1941 for establishing a residential colony and it had sold residential plots to various persons. It was stated that some 2-3 years ago, there were consolidation operations in the vil lage and by an order dated 20th April, 1978, the consolidation authorities treated the disputed land as abadi land and the ownership of the Gaon Sabha thereon was not accepted. It was also alleged that previously several proceedings under Rule 115-C and Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were initiated by the Gaon Sabha and the Nagar Palika which all terminated in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate discharged the notice issued to the petitioner by order dated 29th April, 1985, holding that the disputed land was situate within the territorial limits of the Municipal Board, Aligarh, and was abadi land over which the Gaon Sabha had no right. He also held that proceedings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are of a summary nature and a disputed question of title cannot be decided and the Gaon Sabha can seek its remedy in a competent Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the Gaon Sabha preferred a revision petition before the Collector which came to be decided by the Additional Collector (Admn. ). The Additional Collector ob served that an important question of title was involved in the case and the respon dent (now petitioner) was asserting a title. According to him both the parties have been litigating about the land in various courts, but they not taken the matter seriously. He also observed that both the parties are cantankerous and litigious and have no interest in getting the ques tion of title determined. The Additional Collector stated that Uma Shanker, the present petitioner, was neither getting the entries made in the revenue records cor rected nor was he approaching the civil court for a conclusive order. He went on to observe that where there was a bona fide question of title involved in the case then proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act should not be undertaken. He referred to some judgment in Civil Misc. Writ No. 8016 of 1983, Dineshwar Singh v. Gaon Sabha, in which this Court is stated to have ordered that in such a situation the appropriate relief should be obtained from a civil court. Having observed as aforesaid, the learned Additional Collec tor set-aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directed him to redecide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is against this order passed by the Additional Collector that the petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this petition.;