Bhimsen & another vs Goan Sabha, Shishambara

In spite of sufficient service, none present for the respondent - Gaon Sabha, Shishambara.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by Tehsildar, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun

under Section 122(B) of Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short ?UPZA&LR Act?) and also order dated

20.11.2009 passed in revision by Collector, Dehradun.

It appears that Lekhpal of Gaon Sabha, Shishambara gave a report to Tehsildar Vikasnagar on 06.10.2004 stating that petitioners are in

unauthorized occupation over Gaon Sabha land comprised in various Khasras, including Khasra No. 268(ka), measuring 1.575 hectares. Based

on the said report, Tehsildar, Vikasnagar, Dehradun issued notice to the petitioners in Form 49(Ka). In response to the said notice, petitioners

submitted their objections stating that they are not in possession over the Gaon Sabha land and further that the said land is occupied by Rajkumar,

Babu Ram and certain other persons, who were named in the objections. The concerned Lekhpal in his statement deposed before the Tehsildar

that he does not recognise to petitioner No. 1 - Bhimsen and he only knows petitioner No. 2 - Yudhister. Regarding possession of the petitioners

over the Gaon Sabha land, Lekhpal stated that he can only tell from the record. Lekhpal further stated that he has submitted the report on the basis

of information gathered from other persons. Thus, there is no evidence regarding unauthorized occupation of the petitioners over Gaon Sabha land.

Petitioner No. 2 in his statement had denied any possession over Gaon Sabha land, however, Tehsildar by the impugned order dated 10.04.2008

ordered for eviction of the petitioners from Gaon Sabha land and also ordered for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- against the

petitioners.

Against the said order, petitioners preferred revision before the Collector, Dehradun. The revision filed by the petitioners before the Collector,

Dehradun having been rejected, petitioners approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the law laid down by Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Singh & others Vs

State of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in 1987 R.D. page 203, the impugned order, so far as it imposes damage/penalty upon petitioners,

despite the categorical stand taken by them that they were not in possession over the land in question, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the

petitioners has made a statement at bar that the petitioners are not in possession over the land in dispute. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners

confines his challenge to that portion of the impugned order, whereby damage has been imposed upon the petitioners.

Since petitioners are not in possession over the land in dispute, as per the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner at bar, the

impugned orders dated 10.04.2008 and 20.11.2009 are affirmed, but the damage/penalty imposed upon the petitioners shall not be recovered.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is partly allowed.