High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52828-DB Court No. - 3
Legal Reasoning
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7520 of 2021 Petitioner :- C/M Gandhi Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and counsel representing the respondent no. 7. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to a letter dated 15.2.2021 written by the Tehsildar, Bidhuna, Auraiya addressed to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat and the order impugned notice dated 17.2.2021 issued by the Nagar Panchayat Bidhuna through its Executive Officer addressed to the petitioner. Also under challenge is an order of 15.2.2021, Annexure No. 12 to this petition, which is again a communication made by the Tehsildar to the Executive Officer. 3. In so far as the communications between the Tehsildar and the Nagar Panchayat are concerned, such communications are not required to be interfered with by the writ Court being internal communication between the authorities. In essence, therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved by the so-called order dated 17.2.2021 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition). The same is titled as a notice of illegal encroachment and is addressed to the petitioner. This document states that the petitioner has encroached over plot nos. 37, 38 and 40 situated in Babina, Sukhchainpur, Shahri without the prior permission of the Nagar Panchayat and that such illegal occupation was determined during a demarcation. Such encroachment is a punishable offence under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 etc.. As a consequence, this notice calls upon the petitioner to remove his unauthorized occupation and to approach the respondents with documents of title, failing which, proceedings under the Act, 1916, etc. would be drawn against the petitioner which would culminate in dispossession by the use of police force. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that although this document is titled as notice, it is in fact an order which has been passed without any notice or information to the petitioner and therefore, ex-parte. 5. On a pointed query by the Court as to whether any document of title etc. called for by the said communicate of 17.2.2021 was furnished by the petitioner to the authorities, it is contended that no document was produced before the respondent-authorities because such document would be furnished only after the petitioner has vacated the land and not before that. 6. On the merits, it is contended that the concerned Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat had gifted plot no. 38/2 having area 0.454 hectares, plot no. 40/2 having area 1.22 hectares and plot no. 37/4 having area 0.243 hectares to the society in 1972 after having completed all necessary formalities in this regard. Additionally, a sale deed of plot no. 37 area 0.25 decimal was purchased by the petitioner from its recorded tenure holder Subedar s/o Zalim. The sale deed in this regard dated 26.9.1974 was duly registered on 6.11.1974. There is yet another sale deed relied upon which pertains to plot no. 37M, the sale deed in this regard which is appended along with the supplementary affidavit dated 4.4.2022 as Annexure No. SA-2 does not mention the area of the plot sold and only mentions the land revenue paid. This sale deed has been registered on 1.9.1974. It is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the gift deed and the two sale deeds referred the above, the name of the institution was entered into the revenue records. It is next contended that building of the educational institution was constructed in 1970 to 1972 and for 48 years the educational institution is being run which is duly recognized. It is lastly submitted that it is a Government institution and the petitioner is the Manager of the institution.
Decision
7. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7- Nagar Panchayat has submitted that the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat never gifts any land. Any property belonging to the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat invariably disposed of by means of a lease deed or an allotment. A huge tract of land has allegedly been gifted by the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat. In any case, even if it is assumed that such gift could be made, it can only have been so made after the permission of the Collector in writing. No such document has been brought on record. In any case, the property which was gifted was valuable property and the gift deed necessarily requires registration which again has neither been alleged nor proved. No registered gift deed has been brought on record. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Counsel for the parties have not been able to point out any provision of law whereunder such a huge tract of land could be gifted by the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat. In any case, the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the land and is a mere custodian of the property having managerial rights thereof. Moreover, at the relevant point of time and under the provisions of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the State Government always had the power to resume the property given in the management of the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat by means of a notification. Similar provisions exists even in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 10. Under the circumstances and since, no permission of the Collector has been alleged or brought on record, the case of a gift deed in favour of the petitioner allegedly by the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat cannot be accepted. In so far as the two sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, these sale deeds are of plot nos. 37 and the second sale deed in any case does not mention the area of plot no. 37M which has been sold. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out the total area of plot no. 37. However, from the material on record, it transpires that there are separate plots, the plot no. 37, plot no. 37M and plot no. 37/4 which find mention in the communication, therefore, it can be safely said from the material on record, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to even, prima facie, establish his title over three plots mentioned in the communication of 17.2.2021 impugned in the writ petition which mentions only plot nos. 37, 38 and 40. It is also not clear as to whether the sub-plots of plot nos. 38, 37 and 40 came into existence at what stage. Also merely because an educational institution has been established and the same has been recognized, the same will not confer any title over the land relying which the communication dated 17.2.2021 was issued. 12. In view of the above, and since even, prima facie, title cannot be countenanced by the material on record nor has any document of title been produced before the respondents despite the same having called for by the communication dated 17.2.2021, no case for interference is made out. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 10.4.2025 A. V. Singh