Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Writ - C No. 47092 of 2015 has been filed by 14 petitioners with a prayer that the physical possession over the land allotted to them by way of patta be granted to them. Further Writ - C No. 24674 of 2018 was filed when instead of making available the physical possession of the land granted to the petitioners by way of patta, an order was passed on 26.5.2018 by which the pattas themselves were cancelled. In Writ Petition No. 47092 of 2015, the petitioners had approached this Court with a case that though they were granted pattas in the year 1970-76 after due resolution and approvals, physical possession was not being given to them. It is the case of the petitioners that their names were also mutated in the revenue records. The further case of the petitioners was that when the petitioners insisted that physical possession be given, the District Magistrate Gorakhpur also constituted a team of 7 members to deal with the complaints of the petitioners by an order dated 15.7.2014. However, when nothing was done the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by means of Writ petition No. 47092 of 2015. In this writ petition a counter affidavit was filed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Goala district Gorakhpur. In the Counter Affidavit in paragraph 10 it was stated that efforts would be made for evicting persons who had taken illegal possession over the petitioners' land and also efforts would be made to handover the actual physical possession to the petitioners. Since the petitioners counsel read out the paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit the same is being reproduced here as under:- "10. That the contents of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent that the allotments were made in the year 1970 and 1976 in favour of number of persons including the predecessor of the petitioners. However, it is submitted that the allotment was made in favour of 28 persons in the year 1970 over the land of plot no. 2/1 (old) which was renumbered as plot no. 32M during consolidation operation and plot no. 167/173M, 78Kha, 26ka and 29. The total land which was subject matter of the allotment, was 5.25 acres including the plot no. 2/1. The rest of the land was from other plot numbers. The names of the allottees were duly entered in the revenue record when the village came under the consolidation operation. The names of allottees were also recorded in the final record and six of them namely (1) Ram Sajivan, Ram Sakal sons of Jatanu and Awadhi w/o Jatanu, (2) Jatanu s/o Birbal, Shyamu and Pramod sons of Ramu, (3) Beni, Ramashrey, Kuber sons of Barsati Sanjay and Dharmendra sons of Barsati and Smt. Shakuntala w/o Barsadi, (4) Mahabir son of Aganu (5) Madho son of Molahu and (6) Ram Bahal son of Mahabir are in the possession of the land allotted to them. It appears that rest of the land, though, recorded in the name of the allottees was occupied illegally by some of the members of backward classes who succeeded to raise construction over an area of 0.744 hectare equivalent to 1.84 acres and in the enquiry it was found that 0.324 equivalent to 0.80 acres is covered by the Pucca road. Similarly, a Primary School was constructed over an area 0.045 hectare equivalent to 0.11 acre of the same plot. Thus out 3.82 acres of the land (subject matter of allotment), 2.75 acre is under occupation and the allottees of the aforesaid land did not take any action preventing encroachment made in last four decades. However, the allottees of other plot numbers retained possession namely Achhey Lal s/o Bhagelu, Kamala, Ramayan sons of Tirath, Ghurahu son of Baldev, Sumer s/o Suleman. Thus the rest of allottees of 1970 except the aforesaid persons, did not retain possession of the land allotted to them and appears to be done anything during the consolidation operation when such encroachment was made. However, the deponent submits that appropriate proceedings will be taken against those who have occupied the land without any valid allotment."
(2.) When still the petitioners were not given possession, this Court on 16.3.2018 passed an order that the land which was occupied by unauthorized occupants would be freed of encroachments and the encroachers would be evicted and the petitioners would be given possession. The order dated 16.3.2018 is being reproduced here as under:- "Admittedly all the 14 petitioners have been granted pattas between 1970 and 1976. Under Section 198-A, it has been provided that the Assistant Collector either on his own or on an application of an allottee would put him in possession if he finds that he was not in possession. For convenience Section 198-A(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindiari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is being reproduced here as under: "198-A(1) Where any person is admitted as a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of any land, under Section 195, or as an asami of any land, under Section 197, (such person hereinafter referred to in this section as the allottee) or where any land is let out to any person by the State Government (such person hereinafter referred to in this section as the lessee) and any person other than the allottee or lessee is in occupation of such land in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the Assistant Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of the allottee or lessee, as the case may be, put him in possession of such land and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as he considers necessary." An Assistant Collector or the Sub-divisional Officer has the duty to inspect the land which is under his supervision. The Land Revenue Act and the Uttar Pradesh Zamindiari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 function simply on the basis of the inspections done by the Sub-divisional Officers or the Assistant Collectors. The Sub-divisional Officer is the in-charge of his division. He has to see that a person who has been granted a patta has to be put in possession over the land allotted. He has not to depend on the mutation proceedings. In fact, if he finds that the mutation has not taken place in pursuance of the patta then he has to make effort to see that the possession and mutation both are there as per the patta. Respondents to see that the land which is occupied by unauthorised persons, is vacated and the petitioners are put in possession. Also, such authorities who are responsible for not putting the petitioners in possession after patta was granted should be found out and should be punished. Put up on 23.3.2018 in the additional cause list. "
(3.) Thereafter when enquiries were made as to why the possession was not being given then one Gaurav Srivastava, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gola, District Gorakhpur filed a personal affidavit of his stating that efforts would be made to give possession to the petitioners and in fact in paragraph 9 of the personal affidavit he had also stated that the petitioners would be put in possession over certain vacant plots. Paragraph no. 9 of the personal affidavit of Sri Gaurav Srivastava filed on 27.2.2018 is being reproduced here as under:- "That since some plots including plot no. 26 and 11 are Miljumla plots and at present are vacant and as such on these plots the petitioners may be put into possession.";