The Collector Sultanpur And Others vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

contained as Annexures 6 & 7 to the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.1990, the Lekhpal of village Demapara District Sultanpur informed to the opposite party no.2 on the complaint of petitioner's neighbour Mr. Surya Narain that the petitioner has occupied the land of plots Nos. 273/0.28, 274/0.28, which are recorded as Parti and Khad Gadha, respectively.

4. The petitioner filed his objection against the notice under Section 49 A of U.P.Z.A.B.R. Act and submitted that his house in question has been constructed by his father long ago in his own Sehan and he has not occupied the Gaon Sabha land. It is also alleged in the objection that the Lekhpal has not inspected the land in dispute and submitted the report on a complaint of Mr. Surya Narain, who is neighbour of the petitioner.

5. On 31.05.1994, opposite party no.2 had taken back the notice issued under Section 49A on the ground that the disputed house has not been demarceted by the Lekhpal. Opposite party no.2 further directed the Lekhpal to inspect the site in presence of the petitioner and Gram Pradhan 2 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999 and then submit the report indicating the occupied area of land in dispute for further proceeding Under Section 122 (B). The True photo copy of the order dated 31.05.1994 is filed as Annexure.2 to the writ petition.

6. When the Lekhpal failed to comply the order dated 31.05.1994, then the Suzya Narain had again moved an application before the Chief Revenue Officer and alleged that the Lekhpal has not sent his report against the petitioner who has misappropirated the Gaon Sabha Land. On

26.11.1995, the Lekhpal again submitted his report that the petitioner has occupied 273/0.010 and 274/0.005 against 273/0.028, 274/0.038 and constructed the house. It is relevent to mention here that the Lekhpal has not given any notice to the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan but when the said Surya Narain had complained against the Lekhpal to the Chief Revenue Officer and Tehsildar then the Lekhpal submitted the report as desired by the said Surya Narain. The said Surya Narain in collusion with the Lekhpal made forged and fabricated report of Gram Pradhan alongwith Lekhpal's report.

7. On 03.12.1996, opposite party no.2 again issued notice against the petitioner for the proceeding under Section 122(B) of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act

1950. It is relevant to mention here that both proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated on application of petitioner's neighbour Mr. Surya Nardin against whom regular suit No. 443 of 1991 Raj Kazan Vs. Surya Narain is pending and Learned Munsif North restrained the Surya Narain from constructing the Latrine in the west side of the petitioner's house. The land management committee has not passed any resolution against the petitioner till date.

8. According to First report of Lekhpal dated 22.10.1994 the petitioner occupied the whole plots Nos. 273, 274 but as her second report dated

26.11.1995 the petitioner occupied only 0.010 + 0.005 = 0.015 air. It is further relevant to mention that both proceeding have not been initiated by the Land Management Committee and the said Surya Narain submitted forged and fabricated report of Gram Pradhan. The Lekhpal submitted his report alongwith forged and fabricated report of Smt. Ram Kali who is acting Pradhan of Gram Sabha. 3 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999

9. The petitioner filed his objection against the said proceeding on

26.04.1997 and alleged that the order dated 31.5.1994 has not been complied with by the Lekhpal and prior to inspection of the land in dispute the notice to the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan has not been given by the Lekhpal. It is also alleged in the objection that entire proceedings has bean initiated by the said Surya Narain in collusion with the Lekhpal. True Photo stat copy of the objection dated 26.04.1997 is filed as ANNEXURE No.3 to the writ petition.

10. It is further relevant to mention that the said house in question has been constructed by the petitioner's father prior to Zamidari Abolition and it is admitted case of the Lekhpal that the petitioner's has only one house and 12 Biswa land for agricultural purposes. On 25.11.1997 and on

04.04.1998 the Lekhpal and the Gram Pradhan have been examined by the court. The said Lekhpal has said on oath that Surya Narain singh moved an application before the C.R.O. and Tehsildar then Lekhpal went for inspection but he has not given written information to the petitioner as well as to the Gram Pradhan. The Lekhpal further submitted that he can not say about the constructed area and it has not been recorded in the Khasra and the petitioner has no other house except the disputed house and 12 biswa land for agricultural purposes. The Gram Pradhan Smt. Ram Kali said on oath that she has not given any application for initiation of proceedings under Section 122(B) against the petitioner. She further said that she has not seen the petitioner while constructing the house and proposal for the same has not been passed in the meeting of Land Management Committee. The photo copy of the statements of Lekhpal and Gram Pradhan are being filed as Annexure No.4 & 5 to the writ petition.

11. On 31.10.1998 an ex-parte order has been passed by the opposite party no.2 without hearing to the petitioner's council on the basis of Lekhpal's report. The Trial court failed to appreciate the evidence that the said Lekhpal has not given information to the petitioners as well as Gram Pradhan at the time of inspection in compliance of the order dated

31.05.1994. The order itself says that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of report of the Lekhpal. The photo copy of the order dated

31.10.1998 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.6 to writ petition. 4 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999

12. Against the order dated 31.10.1998, the petitioner filed revision, which has also been dismissed by the Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 19.06.1999. A copy of which is being filed as Annexure-7 to this writ petition. It is relevant to mention that on 21.11.1998, the petitioner filed an application for recalling the order dated 31.10.1998 on the ground that he has not given any opportunity of hearing and the said order has been passed only on the basis of Lekhpal's report but the said application has been rejected by opposite party no.2 on 23.12.1998. A true photo copy of the order dated 23.12.1998 is being filed as ANNEXURE NO.8 to this petition.

13. In pursuance of the order dated 31.10.1998, opposite party no.2 issued recovery certificate for realizing the mentioned amount Rs.12000/- against the petitioner on 19.06.1999. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has only one house which was constructed by his father prior commencement of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act on his Sehan land situated in the Abadi but when the petitioner filed the regular suit against the said Surya Narain then he made strategy against the petitioner for his harassment. The Gram Pradhan in chief of the Land Management Committee and in the instant case Smt. Ram Kali clearly said that she had not passed any resolution against the petitioner for initiating the proceeding under Section 122 (B) of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act. The Lekhpal has submitted his report stating therein that petitioner has constructed his house in plot No. 273, 274 but he has failed to expláin that as to why the written notice for inepsection has not been given by him to the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan. The Lekhpal further concealed by saying that he can not say that who was present at the time of inspection of the site. Feeling aggrieved and having no alternative and equally efficacious remedy, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in un-authorized occupation of land before U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1952 and has build his house and there is no any other source of livelihood except the land of 12 biswa. He is a poor person and is not able to manage to build his house at any other land, therefore, requested that some amicable settlement is to be made to save house of the petitioner.

15. His next submission is that the land in question is not reserved for any 5 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999 public purposes, therefore, in case by paying damages the settlement is made, no unjustice will be done.

16. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that in case of deposit of damages, settlement can be made.

17. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

18. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no any other house except the built at disputed land and he is ready to deposit the damages in the tune of Rupees Fifteen thousand for making settlement.

19. Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of residents of the village. Gaon Sabha is permitted rather required to allot land for abadi purposes. User of the land reserved for several other purposes may be converted into abadi and then it may be allotted by Gaon Sabha for constructing houses. Unauthorized occupation of scheduled caste and now of other backward classes or persons of general category living below poverty line before a particular cut off date is regularized under Section 123 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Initially, the cut off dates were June, 1985 and June

1995. The latest cut off date is 01.05.2002 (vide Sections 122A (1) and (2) (a), (e), 122C and 123 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 29C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

20. The petitioner constructed house on small portion of disputed land, which is not reserved for any important public purpose like pond, road etc. The house is in existence for a long time and for about 35 years the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute, then it is not proper to direct demolition of the house and eviction of the occupant thereof. In such situation, reasonable damages will serve the public purpose better.

21. Hence, in stead of demolition of house and eviction, the petitioner is directed to pay damages of Rupees Fifteen thousand to the Gaon Sabha within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

22. The impugned orders dated 31.10.1998 and 19.06.1999 contained as Annexures 6 & 7 to the writ petition are hereby set aside.

23. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 6 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999 (Irshad Ali,J.) October 31, 2025 Adarsh K Singh ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

contained as Annexures 6 & 7 to the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.1990, the Lekhpal of village Demapara District Sultanpur informed to the opposite party no.2 on the complaint of petitioner's neighbour Mr. Surya Narain that the petitioner has occupied the land of plots Nos. 273/0.28, 274/0.28, which are recorded as Parti and Khad Gadha, respectively.

4. The petitioner filed his objection against the notice under Section 49 A of U.P.Z.A.B.R. Act and submitted that his house in question has been constructed by his father long ago in his own Sehan and he has not occupied the Gaon Sabha land. It is also alleged in the objection that the Lekhpal has not inspected the land in dispute and submitted the report on a complaint of Mr. Surya Narain, who is neighbour of the petitioner.

5. On 31.05.1994, opposite party no.2 had taken back the notice issued under Section 49A on the ground that the disputed house has not been demarceted by the Lekhpal. Opposite party no.2 further directed the Lekhpal to inspect the site in presence of the petitioner and Gram Pradhan 2 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999 and then submit the report indicating the occupied area of land in dispute for further proceeding Under Section 122 (B). The True photo copy of the order dated 31.05.1994 is filed as Annexure.2 to the writ petition.

6. When the Lekhpal failed to comply the order dated 31.05.1994, then the Suzya Narain had again moved an application before the Chief Revenue Officer and alleged that the Lekhpal has not sent his report against the petitioner who has misappropirated the Gaon Sabha Land. On

26.11.1995, the Lekhpal again submitted his report that the petitioner has occupied 273/0.010 and 274/0.005 against 273/0.028, 274/0.038 and constructed the house. It is relevent to mention here that the Lekhpal has not given any notice to the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan but when the said Surya Narain had complained against the Lekhpal to the Chief Revenue Officer and Tehsildar then the Lekhpal submitted the report as desired by the said Surya Narain. The said Surya Narain in collusion with the Lekhpal made forged and fabricated report of Gram Pradhan alongwith Lekhpal's report.

7. On 03.12.1996, opposite party no.2 again issued notice against the petitioner for the proceeding under Section 122(B) of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act

1950. It is relevant to mention here that both proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated on application of petitioner's neighbour Mr. Surya Nardin against whom regular suit No. 443 of 1991 Raj Kazan Vs. Surya Narain is pending and Learned Munsif North restrained the Surya Narain from constructing the Latrine in the west side of the petitioner's house. The land management committee has not passed any resolution against the petitioner till date.

8. According to First report of Lekhpal dated 22.10.1994 the petitioner occupied the whole plots Nos. 273, 274 but as her second report dated

26.11.1995 the petitioner occupied only 0.010 + 0.005 = 0.015 air. It is further relevant to mention that both proceeding have not been initiated by the Land Management Committee and the said Surya Narain submitted forged and fabricated report of Gram Pradhan. The Lekhpal submitted his report alongwith forged and fabricated report of Smt. Ram Kali who is acting Pradhan of Gram Sabha. 3 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999

9. The petitioner filed his objection against the said proceeding on

26.04.1997 and alleged that the order dated 31.5.1994 has not been complied with by the Lekhpal and prior to inspection of the land in dispute the notice to the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan has not been given by the Lekhpal. It is also alleged in the objection that entire proceedings has bean initiated by the said Surya Narain in collusion with the Lekhpal. True Photo stat copy of the objection dated 26.04.1997 is filed as ANNEXURE No.3 to the writ petition.

10. It is further relevant to mention that the said house in question has been constructed by the petitioner's father prior to Zamidari Abolition and it is admitted case of the Lekhpal that the petitioner's has only one house and 12 Biswa land for agricultural purposes. On 25.11.1997 and on

04.04.1998 the Lekhpal and the Gram Pradhan have been examined by the court. The said Lekhpal has said on oath that Surya Narain singh moved an application before the C.R.O. and Tehsildar then Lekhpal went for inspection but he has not given written information to the petitioner as well as to the Gram Pradhan. The Lekhpal further submitted that he can not say about the constructed area and it has not been recorded in the Khasra and the petitioner has no other house except the disputed house and 12 biswa land for agricultural purposes. The Gram Pradhan Smt. Ram Kali said on oath that she has not given any application for initiation of proceedings under Section 122(B) against the petitioner. She further said that she has not seen the petitioner while constructing the house and proposal for the same has not been passed in the meeting of Land Management Committee. The photo copy of the statements of Lekhpal and Gram Pradhan are being filed as Annexure No.4 & 5 to the writ petition.

11. On 31.10.1998 an ex-parte order has been passed by the opposite party no.2 without hearing to the petitioner's council on the basis of Lekhpal's report. The Trial court failed to appreciate the evidence that the said Lekhpal has not given information to the petitioners as well as Gram Pradhan at the time of inspection in compliance of the order dated

31.05.1994. The order itself says that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of report of the Lekhpal. The photo copy of the order dated

31.10.1998 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.6 to writ petition. 4 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999

12. Against the order dated 31.10.1998, the petitioner filed revision, which has also been dismissed by the Chief Revenue Officer vide order dated 19.06.1999. A copy of which is being filed as Annexure-7 to this writ petition. It is relevant to mention that on 21.11.1998, the petitioner filed an application for recalling the order dated 31.10.1998 on the ground that he has not given any opportunity of hearing and the said order has been passed only on the basis of Lekhpal's report but the said application has been rejected by opposite party no.2 on 23.12.1998. A true photo copy of the order dated 23.12.1998 is being filed as ANNEXURE NO.8 to this petition.

13. In pursuance of the order dated 31.10.1998, opposite party no.2 issued recovery certificate for realizing the mentioned amount Rs.12000/- against the petitioner on 19.06.1999. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has only one house which was constructed by his father prior commencement of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act on his Sehan land situated in the Abadi but when the petitioner filed the regular suit against the said Surya Narain then he made strategy against the petitioner for his harassment. The Gram Pradhan in chief of the Land Management Committee and in the instant case Smt. Ram Kali clearly said that she had not passed any resolution against the petitioner for initiating the proceeding under Section 122 (B) of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act. The Lekhpal has submitted his report stating therein that petitioner has constructed his house in plot No. 273, 274 but he has failed to expláin that as to why the written notice for inepsection has not been given by him to the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan. The Lekhpal further concealed by saying that he can not say that who was present at the time of inspection of the site. Feeling aggrieved and having no alternative and equally efficacious remedy, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in un-authorized occupation of land before U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1952 and has build his house and there is no any other source of livelihood except the land of 12 biswa. He is a poor person and is not able to manage to build his house at any other land, therefore, requested that some amicable settlement is to be made to save house of the petitioner.

15. His next submission is that the land in question is not reserved for any 5 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999 public purposes, therefore, in case by paying damages the settlement is made, no unjustice will be done.

16. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that in case of deposit of damages, settlement can be made.

17. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

18. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no any other house except the built at disputed land and he is ready to deposit the damages in the tune of Rupees Fifteen thousand for making settlement.

19. Gaon Sabha holds the land for the benefit of residents of the village. Gaon Sabha is permitted rather required to allot land for abadi purposes. User of the land reserved for several other purposes may be converted into abadi and then it may be allotted by Gaon Sabha for constructing houses. Unauthorized occupation of scheduled caste and now of other backward classes or persons of general category living below poverty line before a particular cut off date is regularized under Section 123 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Initially, the cut off dates were June, 1985 and June

1995. The latest cut off date is 01.05.2002 (vide Sections 122A (1) and (2) (a), (e), 122C and 123 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 29C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

20. The petitioner constructed house on small portion of disputed land, which is not reserved for any important public purpose like pond, road etc. The house is in existence for a long time and for about 35 years the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute, then it is not proper to direct demolition of the house and eviction of the occupant thereof. In such situation, reasonable damages will serve the public purpose better.

21. Hence, in stead of demolition of house and eviction, the petitioner is directed to pay damages of Rupees Fifteen thousand to the Gaon Sabha within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

22. The impugned orders dated 31.10.1998 and 19.06.1999 contained as Annexures 6 & 7 to the writ petition are hereby set aside.

23. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 6 WRIC No. 1002051 of 1999 (Irshad Ali,J.) October 31, 2025 Adarsh K Singh ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench