Chhedilal v. State of U.P.) vide order dated

Petitioner :- Chhedilal Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhavendra Singh,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Madan Mohan Srivastava Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. (Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh for the petitioner, Shri Madan Mohan Srivastava for respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition filed by Chhedilal, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to return the harvested potato crops sown by the petitioner over plot no.3653 area 0.385 hectare situated in Village Purab Paschim Sareera, Pargana Atharwan, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking a declaration that he is bhumidhar of the said plot. This suit was dismissed by the trial court. However, it has been decreed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.132 of 2011-12 (Chhedilal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.09.2022. A further direction was issued for making necessary amaldaramad in the revenue record.

4. In pursuance of the decree, the petitioner had sown potato crop over the said plot.

5. It also emerges from the material brought on record that this standing crop were given in the supurdagi of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Purab Paschim Sareera on 31.01.2024. This was done on account of complaint made by the certain villagers.

6. Subsequently, on another complaint and since it is alleged that the petitioner was trying to harvest the potato crop, the potatoes were actually harvested at the instance of the Executive Officer on two separate dates, namely 24.02.2024 and 26.02.2024. The crops harvested are stated to have weighed 22.75 quintals.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only were the potatoes harvested, they were also sold by the Executive Officer.

8. The contention of Shri M.M. Srivastava, Advocate, who appears for respondent no.5, is that the petitioner is a mere encroacher upon the land which actually belongs to the Nagar Panchayat. He has also submitted that against the revisional order of the Board of Revenue, decreeing the petitioner's suit under Section 229-B of the Act, Writ Petition No.3000 of 2024 was filed by the Nagar Panchayat, wherein an interim order was granted on 22.08.2024.

9. Subsequently on 05.12.2024, the writ petition itself was allowed, the order of the Board of Revenue was set aside and the matter remanded back for fresh consideration in the light of the directions contained in the remand order.

10. On the strength of the above facts, it is the case of the respondent no.5 that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition merits dismissal.

11. It is undisputed between the parties that the potato crop was sown by the petitioner during the currency of a decree in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act in his favour. Even otherwise it is the settled legal position that a person who has sown a crop is entitled to harvest it.

12. In the instant case prior to the crops being harvested, on a dispute raised by certain villagers, the plot in question was given in the supurdagi of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, the fifth respondent. The personal affidavit of the fifth respondent itself admits that since the petitioner was trying to harvest the crop, the same was got harvested and that a total of 22.75 quintal of potatoes were harvested.

13. Instructions were sought from learned Standing Counsel who represents respondent no.3 and 4, the S.D.M. and the Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Manjhanpur about the whereabouts of the harvested crop. The stand of these respondents is that nothing is known about the harvested crop, while it is the case of the petitioner that the harvested crop was disposed of by the respondent no.5.

14. It is also the case of learned Standing Counsel who represents the State-respondents that the potato crop harvested were sold by the Executive Officer, the supurdagidar, without any notice, information or permission of the Tehsil authorities, who had appointed him as such and handed over possession to him.

15. The stand of counsel representing respondent no.5 is that the individual who was holding the post of Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Purab Paschim Sareera, District Kaushambi has since resigned and is no longer in service. Neither is the potato crop available with the Nagar Panchayat nor there exists any record of what happened to it.

16. Since it is not disputed by the respondents that the potato crop, which was harvested had been sown by the petitioner in view of the settled law in its regard, the petitioner was entitled to harvest the same. The same was not harvested by the Executive Officer and the same has been disposed of without any notice, information or permission of the tehsil authority who had given the field and the potato crops in the custody of the erstwhile Executive Officer.

17. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to direct return of the harvested crop to the petitioner as the whereabouts of this crop as the respondents have stated that they are unaware of harvested potatoes.

18. Since the petitioner was entitled to harvest the crop having admittedly sown it, the Court is left with no option but to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the cost of the potatoes that were harvested.

19. There exists a dispute as to the quantity of potato harvested. It is the case of the petitioner that the harvested crop weighed 80 to 90 quintals while it is admitted in the personal affidavit of the erstwhile Executive Officer that the crop harvested weighed 22.75 quintals.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the potato at the point of time, it was harvested would have fetched approximately Rs.25 per kg. This figure could not be disputed by counsel representing respondents in this writ petition.

21. Under the circumstances, we direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner within a period of ten days, an amount calculated at the rate of Rs.25 per kg for the 22.75 quintals of potatoes actually harvested. This amount would come to Rs.56,875/-.

22. The Court has also been informed that the respondent no.3, the S.D.M. is holding charge of the post of Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Purab Paschim Sareera. The payment shall be made by him from the funds of the Nagar Panchayat.

23. Moreover since the crop has been disposed of by the supurdagidar, the erstwhile Executive Officer, without any notice or information or permission of the authorities, who had given the same in his supurdagi and there appears no record of such sale nor is the harvested crop available, it shall be open for the State respondent to either lodged an FIR against the erstwhile Executive Officer and/or to recover the amount directed to be paid over to the petitioner.

24. The payment to the petitioner shall however, not be subject to such recovery and shall be paid within a period of ten days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent no.3.

25. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Mayank

Petitioner :- Chhedilal Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhavendra Singh,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Madan Mohan Srivastava Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. (Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh for the petitioner, Shri Madan Mohan Srivastava for respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition filed by Chhedilal, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to return the harvested potato crops sown by the petitioner over plot no.3653 area 0.385 hectare situated in Village Purab Paschim Sareera, Pargana Atharwan, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking a declaration that he is bhumidhar of the said plot. This suit was dismissed by the trial court. However, it has been decreed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.132 of 2011-12 (Chhedilal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.09.2022. A further direction was issued for making necessary amaldaramad in the revenue record.

4. In pursuance of the decree, the petitioner had sown potato crop over the said plot.

5. It also emerges from the material brought on record that this standing crop were given in the supurdagi of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Purab Paschim Sareera on 31.01.2024. This was done on account of complaint made by the certain villagers.

6. Subsequently, on another complaint and since it is alleged that the petitioner was trying to harvest the potato crop, the potatoes were actually harvested at the instance of the Executive Officer on two separate dates, namely 24.02.2024 and 26.02.2024. The crops harvested are stated to have weighed 22.75 quintals.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only were the potatoes harvested, they were also sold by the Executive Officer.

8. The contention of Shri M.M. Srivastava, Advocate, who appears for respondent no.5, is that the petitioner is a mere encroacher upon the land which actually belongs to the Nagar Panchayat. He has also submitted that against the revisional order of the Board of Revenue, decreeing the petitioner's suit under Section 229-B of the Act, Writ Petition No.3000 of 2024 was filed by the Nagar Panchayat, wherein an interim order was granted on 22.08.2024.

9. Subsequently on 05.12.2024, the writ petition itself was allowed, the order of the Board of Revenue was set aside and the matter remanded back for fresh consideration in the light of the directions contained in the remand order.

10. On the strength of the above facts, it is the case of the respondent no.5 that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition merits dismissal.

11. It is undisputed between the parties that the potato crop was sown by the petitioner during the currency of a decree in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act in his favour. Even otherwise it is the settled legal position that a person who has sown a crop is entitled to harvest it.

12. In the instant case prior to the crops being harvested, on a dispute raised by certain villagers, the plot in question was given in the supurdagi of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, the fifth respondent. The personal affidavit of the fifth respondent itself admits that since the petitioner was trying to harvest the crop, the same was got harvested and that a total of 22.75 quintal of potatoes were harvested.

13. Instructions were sought from learned Standing Counsel who represents respondent no.3 and 4, the S.D.M. and the Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Manjhanpur about the whereabouts of the harvested crop. The stand of these respondents is that nothing is known about the harvested crop, while it is the case of the petitioner that the harvested crop was disposed of by the respondent no.5.

14. It is also the case of learned Standing Counsel who represents the State-respondents that the potato crop harvested were sold by the Executive Officer, the supurdagidar, without any notice, information or permission of the Tehsil authorities, who had appointed him as such and handed over possession to him.

15. The stand of counsel representing respondent no.5 is that the individual who was holding the post of Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Purab Paschim Sareera, District Kaushambi has since resigned and is no longer in service. Neither is the potato crop available with the Nagar Panchayat nor there exists any record of what happened to it.

16. Since it is not disputed by the respondents that the potato crop, which was harvested had been sown by the petitioner in view of the settled law in its regard, the petitioner was entitled to harvest the same. The same was not harvested by the Executive Officer and the same has been disposed of without any notice, information or permission of the tehsil authority who had given the field and the potato crops in the custody of the erstwhile Executive Officer.

17. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to direct return of the harvested crop to the petitioner as the whereabouts of this crop as the respondents have stated that they are unaware of harvested potatoes.

18. Since the petitioner was entitled to harvest the crop having admittedly sown it, the Court is left with no option but to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the cost of the potatoes that were harvested.

19. There exists a dispute as to the quantity of potato harvested. It is the case of the petitioner that the harvested crop weighed 80 to 90 quintals while it is admitted in the personal affidavit of the erstwhile Executive Officer that the crop harvested weighed 22.75 quintals.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the potato at the point of time, it was harvested would have fetched approximately Rs.25 per kg. This figure could not be disputed by counsel representing respondents in this writ petition.

21. Under the circumstances, we direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner within a period of ten days, an amount calculated at the rate of Rs.25 per kg for the 22.75 quintals of potatoes actually harvested. This amount would come to Rs.56,875/-.

22. The Court has also been informed that the respondent no.3, the S.D.M. is holding charge of the post of Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Purab Paschim Sareera. The payment shall be made by him from the funds of the Nagar Panchayat.

23. Moreover since the crop has been disposed of by the supurdagidar, the erstwhile Executive Officer, without any notice or information or permission of the authorities, who had given the same in his supurdagi and there appears no record of such sale nor is the harvested crop available, it shall be open for the State respondent to either lodged an FIR against the erstwhile Executive Officer and/or to recover the amount directed to be paid over to the petitioner.

24. The payment to the petitioner shall however, not be subject to such recovery and shall be paid within a period of ten days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent no.3.

25. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Mayank